Your Cart
Kuwait Airways v Iraq Airways 2002 Conflict of Laws

Kuwait Airways v Iraq Airways [2002]

Kuwait Airways Corporation v Iraq Airways Co (Nos 4 and 5) [2002] 2 AC 883 is a landmark case in international law and tort law, concerning the issue of state immunity and the scope of a state's immunity from legal proceedings in foreign courts.

The case involved a dispute between Kuwait Airways Corporation (KAC) and Iraq Airways Company (IAC) over unpaid debts arising from the First Gulf War. During the war, Iraqi troops seized a number of aircraft belonging to KAC and took them to Iraq. After the war ended, KAC sought to recover the aircraft and obtain compensation for the losses it had suffered as a result of the seizure. IAC claimed that it was immune from the lawsuit under the doctrine of state immunity. State immunity is a principle of international law that provides that a state is immune from legal proceedings in foreign courts, except in certain limited circumstances.

The issue before the House of Lords was whether IAC was entitled to claim state immunity in this case. The House of Lords held that IAC was not entitled to claim state immunity, as it had waived its immunity by its conduct. The Court found that IAC had acted in a manner that was inconsistent with its claim to immunity. The House of Lords also held that the seizure of KAC's aircraft by Iraqi troops during the First Gulf War was an act of aggression and a breach of international law. As a result, IAC was liable to pay compensation to KAC for the losses it had suffered as a result of the seizure.

In particular, the House of Lords held that the tort of conversion had been committed. Lord Nicholls outlined a three-pronged test for conversion. First, the defendant's conduct must be inconsistent with the rights of the owner. Second, the conduct must be deliberate, not accidental. Third, the conduct must be so extensive as to exclude the owner from the use and possession of the goods. The exclusion from possession may depend on whether the wrongdoer intended to exercise dominion over the goods.

Lord Nicholls emphasised that exclusion from possession does not necessarily mean physically taking the goods from the owner. It may also occur when the owner is withheld possession. Mere unauthorised retention of another's goods is not conversion unless it is adverse to the owner, excluding them from the goods and accompanied by an intention to keep the goods. While a demand and refusal are the usual ways of proving this intention, they are not the exclusive means.

In the Kuwait Airways case, Iraqi Airways (IAC) asserted rights inconsistent with Kuwait Airways' (KAC) ownership, evidenced by various actions such as passing a resolution for registration, applying for certificates of airworthiness, obtaining insurance cover, overpainting aircraft, and using them for commercial flights. The court found these actions to be indicative of an intention to keep the goods adverse to the owner.

This case established that a state may waive its immunity by its conduct. The case also held that acts of aggression and breaches of international law may give rise to a state's liability to pay compensation to the injured party. This decision reflects the expansion of the tort of conversion to encompass cases of detention, subsuming the previous tort of detinue. The court clarified that a demand and refusal are not the exclusive conditions for proving conversion; other circumstances indicating an intention to exercise dominion over the goods can also establish the tort of conversion.

Check out our exam-focused Conflict of Laws notes now.

Subscribe to UOL Case Bank for more exclusive content and case summaries.

Trusted by thousands of law students worldwide

Where are our students from?

Yale University

Council of Europe

Baker Mckenzie 

University of Chicago

Columbia University

New York University

University of Michigan 


University College London (UCL)

London School of Economics (LSE)

King’s College London (KCL)

University of London

University of Manchester

University of Zurich

University of York

Brandeis University

University of Exeter

University of Sheffield

Boston University

University of Washington

University of Leeds

University of Law

Royal Holloway, University of London 

Birkbeck, University of London

SOAS, University of London

University of Kent

University of Hull

Queen’s University Belfast

Toronto Metropolitan University

Hong Kong University of Science and Technology

University of Buckingham

Your perfect companion for open-book and closed-book exams

Diagrams and Charts

Our carefully designed diagrams and charts will guide you through complex legal issues.

Clear and Succinct Definitions

Key concepts are concisely defined to help you understand legal topics quickly.

Statutory Provisions

Statutory provisions are provided side by side with legal concepts to help you swiftly locate the relevant legislation.

Case Summaries

We have summarised important cases for you so that you don't need to read long and boring cases.

Rules and Exceptions

Rules and exceptions are clearly listed so that you know when a rule applies and when it doesn't.


Legal terms and key concepts are explained at the beginning of each chapter to help you learn efficiently.

Case Law

Case law is provided side by side with legal concepts so that you know how legal principles and precedents were established.

Law Essay Guide

You will learn essential law exam skills and essay writing techniques that are not taught in class.

Problem Question Guide

We will show you how to answer problem questions step by step to achieve first-class results.

Structured Explanations

Complex legal concepts are broken down into concise and digestible bullet point explanations.

Legal Research

You will learn legal research techniques with our study guide and become a proficient legal researcher.


All essential concepts, principles, and case law are included so that you can answer exam questions quickly.