## Facts

- Dr. Holland, a U.S. citizen and university professor, taught master’s-level international relations courses to personnel at a U.S. signals intelligence base located at RAF Menwith Hill in the United Kingdom.
- Lampen-Wolfe, also a U.S. citizen, served as an education services officer and U.S. Department of Defense official responsible for overseeing educational programs on the base.
- In March 1997, Lampen-Wolfe wrote and circulated an internal memorandum titled “Unacceptable Instructor Performance” criticizing Holland’s teaching and recommending replacement.
- Holland alleged the memorandum contained false statements and sued in England for defamation damages.
- The United States asserted state immunity on the ground that Lampen-Wolfe acted in an official capacity in relation to U.S. armed forces present in the United Kingdom.
- The High Court and Court of Appeal accepted the immunity claim and prevented the action from proceeding.

## Issues

1. Whether State Immunity Act 1978 § 16(2) disapplies Part I of the Act because the proceedings “relate to anything done by or in relation to the armed forces” of a foreign state present in the United Kingdom.
2. If Part I is disapplied, whether common-law state immunity bars the claim because the complained-of conduct is an act jure imperii rather than jure gestionis.
3. Whether recognizing state immunity in these circumstances violates Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights by denying access to a court.

## Decision

- The House of Lords dismissed the appeal and held the defamation action could not proceed.
- Section 16(2) applied because the claim related to acts done “by or in relation to” U.S. armed forces present in the United Kingdom; therefore Part I of the State Immunity Act 1978 (including any commercial-transaction exception) was disapplied.
- Under common-law state immunity, the memorandum was characterized as an act jure imperii: an official act connected to the management and functioning of foreign armed forces stationed abroad.
- Article 6 was not breached because state immunity is a recognized limitation on court access when it reflects generally accepted rules of international law on sovereign equality.

## Legal Principles

- State Immunity Act 1978 § 16(2) removes proceedings from Part I when they relate to anything done by or in relation to a foreign state’s armed forces while present in the United Kingdom.
- Where Part I is disapplied, immunity is determined under the common law.
- At common law, immunity turns on whether the conduct is jure imperii (sovereign/public) or jure gestionis (commercial/private); internal military administration connected to maintaining and managing foreign forces is treated as jure imperii.
- The Article 6 right of access to a court is not absolute; recognition of state immunity, grounded in international law, can justify restricting a claimant’s ability to sue in domestic courts.

## Conclusion

The House of Lords held that England’s statutory and common-law rules on state immunity barred a defamation claim arising from an internal memorandum written by a U.S. Department of Defense official in connection with educational oversight on a U.S. base, and that applying immunity did not violate Article 6.


Holland v. Lampen-Wolfe, [2000] UKHL 40 (H.L. 2000)