Abstract The decision of the Court of Appeal in Hulley Enterprises Limited v The Russian Federation1 is the latest instalment in the Yukos saga, which stretches back to 2014. The significance of the decision lies in the Court's reliance on an issue estoppel to find that Russia was not immune from the jurisdiction of the English courts for the purpose of recognizing and enforcing arbitral awards. It appears that Hulley is the first time a Court has decided an issue of immunity by relying on issue estoppel. Whilst the Court ultimately reached the right outcome in finding that Russia was not immune from jurisdiction, its reliance on issue estoppel is problematic and gives rise to significant challenges. The Court should have found that it was necessary to argue the issue of state immunity in full. Permission to appeal to the Supreme Court has been refused, meaning that the Court of Appeal's decision now represents the law in England & Wales and will likely be influential in other common law jurisdictions. Nevertheless, the Court's decision should be considered a mis-step, and its analysis of both the law of state immunity and issue estoppel should treated with caution. 1 Hulley Enterprises Limited & Ors v The Russian Federation 2025 EWCA Civ 108.
Shaun Matos (Thu,) studied this question.