- Published on
KembaraXtra - Case Law - Kuwait Airways Corp v Iraq Airways Co [2000] All ER (D) 528
I. Case Overview
Parties: Kuwait Airways Corp (KAC) v Iraq Airways Co (IAC)
Court: Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court, England & Wales
Judge: Aikens J
Date: 7 April 2000
Subject: Tort Law - Wrongful interference with goods, Conversion, Causation, Sovereign Immunity
II. Background
Context: Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990.
Claim: KAC sued IAC for losses suffered due to wrongful interference with ten KAC aircraft.
Aircraft Fate:
Four aircraft ("Mosul four") destroyed in coalition air raids in Iraq.
Six aircraft ("Iran six") flown to Iran and eventually returned to Kuwait.
Prior Proceedings:
House of Lords ruled IAC had sovereign immunity up to 17 September 1990 (date Iraq purported to dissolve KAC and transfer assets to IAC). See [1995] 3 All ER 694
Commercial Court found IAC wrongfully interfered with the aircraft under both English and Iraqi law. See [1998] All ER (D) 149
III. Issues Before the Court
Causation: Did IAC's tortious acts after 17 September 1990 cause damage to KAC?
Would the aircraft's position have been different without IAC's post-17 September torts?
Intervening Acts: Were there any new intervening acts that broke the chain of causation?
Remoteness of Damage: Was the damage suffered too remote to be recoverable?
IV. Court Ruling & Principles
Wrongful Interference & Causation: Claimant must prove the wrongful interference caused the loss.
"But For" Test: Court must determine if the loss would have occurred "but for" the defendant's tort.
New Intervening Act: Rules are the same as for negligence. No special rule if the act is by human agency.
Remoteness of Damage:
Test is the same as for negligence, nuisance, or Rylands v Fletcher.
Foreseeability: The type of damage suffered must have been foreseeable to the tortfeasor at the time the tort was committed.
Not Directness: The test is not whether the damage was the "direct" or "direct and natural" result of the tort.
V. Application to the Facts
IAC's Wrongful Act: Incorporation of KAC aircraft into IAC's fleet.
Ignoring Events Before September 17th: The court ignored events before September 17th when considering the “but for” test.
Mosul Four:
Their fate would have been the same regardless of IAC's post-17 September actions.
The aircraft would still have been at Mosul and destroyed by allied bombing.
The bombing was not a "new intervening act."
Iran Six:
They would still have been flown to Iran and detained after hostilities.
Outcome: All of KAC's claims failed because the damage wasn't caused by the post-immunity tortious acts.
VI. Case Cited
The Oropesa [1943] P 32
VII. Legal Representation
KAC: Nicholas Chambers QC, Christopher Greenwood QC, Joe Smouha and Sam Wordsworth (instructed by Howard Kennedy)
IAC: David Donaldson QC and Stephen Nathan QC (instructed by Landau and Scanlan)
I. Case Overview
Parties: Kuwait Airways Corp (KAC) v Iraq Airways Co (IAC)
Court: Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court, England & Wales
Judge: Aikens J
Date: 7 April 2000
Subject: Tort Law - Wrongful interference with goods, Conversion, Causation, Sovereign Immunity
II. Background
Context: Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990.
Claim: KAC sued IAC for losses suffered due to wrongful interference with ten KAC aircraft.
Aircraft Fate:
Four aircraft ("Mosul four") destroyed in coalition air raids in Iraq.
Six aircraft ("Iran six") flown to Iran and eventually returned to Kuwait.
Prior Proceedings:
House of Lords ruled IAC had sovereign immunity up to 17 September 1990 (date Iraq purported to dissolve KAC and transfer assets to IAC). See [1995] 3 All ER 694
Commercial Court found IAC wrongfully interfered with the aircraft under both English and Iraqi law. See [1998] All ER (D) 149
III. Issues Before the Court
Causation: Did IAC's tortious acts after 17 September 1990 cause damage to KAC?
Would the aircraft's position have been different without IAC's post-17 September torts?
Intervening Acts: Were there any new intervening acts that broke the chain of causation?
Remoteness of Damage: Was the damage suffered too remote to be recoverable?
IV. Court Ruling & Principles
Wrongful Interference & Causation: Claimant must prove the wrongful interference caused the loss.
"But For" Test: Court must determine if the loss would have occurred "but for" the defendant's tort.
New Intervening Act: Rules are the same as for negligence. No special rule if the act is by human agency.
Remoteness of Damage:
Test is the same as for negligence, nuisance, or Rylands v Fletcher.
Foreseeability: The type of damage suffered must have been foreseeable to the tortfeasor at the time the tort was committed.
Not Directness: The test is not whether the damage was the "direct" or "direct and natural" result of the tort.
V. Application to the Facts
IAC's Wrongful Act: Incorporation of KAC aircraft into IAC's fleet.
Ignoring Events Before September 17th: The court ignored events before September 17th when considering the “but for” test.
Mosul Four:
Their fate would have been the same regardless of IAC's post-17 September actions.
The aircraft would still have been at Mosul and destroyed by allied bombing.
The bombing was not a "new intervening act."
Iran Six:
They would still have been flown to Iran and detained after hostilities.
Outcome: All of KAC's claims failed because the damage wasn't caused by the post-immunity tortious acts.
VI. Case Cited
The Oropesa [1943] P 32
VII. Legal Representation
KAC: Nicholas Chambers QC, Christopher Greenwood QC, Joe Smouha and Sam Wordsworth (instructed by Howard Kennedy)
IAC: David Donaldson QC and Stephen Nathan QC (instructed by Landau and Scanlan)
0 Comments