I have read the short reasons of Perram J concerning the transcript correction. My agreement with the reasons of Perram J as expressed in  and following of my reasons in Kingdom of Spain v Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.à.r.l.  FCAFC 3 remains unchanged and should be now read as agreement with his Honour's reasons published on 1 February 2021 and as agreement with his Honour's reasons published today, subject to my reasons published on 1 February 2021.
…The Respondents claim that a submission was made to the trial judge at T66.1ff that the relief sought was in the nature of recognition. There it was said:
And coming back to your Honour's question about the "or", there's nothing in even the French or Spanish version that talks of immunity from recognition.
One way in which this court recognises international law as being – as having the status of a judgment of this court is by making a declaration that it does have that status, and the question is what flows from that.
I incline to the view that this was not sufficient to raise the point. However, it makes no difference. The issue is directly raised by ground 3 of the Respondents' amended notice of contention and was addressed in their written submissions in the Full Court. Although Spain submitted that it was too late for the matter to be raised it did not point to any species of procedural prejudice occasioned to it by the alleged late raising of the matter. Further, it did not make any substantive submission as to why the proceeding could not be characterised as a recognition proceeding although it had an abundant opportunity to do so in this Court.
Get access to the most extensive & reliable source of information in arbitrationREQUEST A FREE TRIAL
Already registered ?