This blog post was contributed by Dr Manos Maganaris, Module Convenor for Conflict of laws.
In its decision of 7 March 2025, in the case of Abram and Others v. UEFA and UEFA Events [2025] EWHC 483 (KB), the High Court allowed Liverpool supporters to proceed with personal injury claims arising from the 2022 UEFA Champions League final in Paris before the courts of England and Wales. The match, held at the Stade de France, was marred by serious disorder, including severe overcrowding, aggressive policing, and violent attacks by local gangs, which led to numerous injuries among supporters. An independent review subsequently concluded that UEFA bore primary responsibility for the organisational and safety failings that nearly resulted in a disaster.
Some 800 Liverpool FC supporters initiated claims for damages, alleging that they sustained injuries during the chaotic events surrounding the final on 28 May 2022. The claimants asserted that they suffered harm due to being crushed in the crowd, exposure to tear gas and pepper spray deployed by French police, and assaults by residents. They argued that the defendants, who bore responsibility for the organisation of the match, breached their contractual and/or tortious duties in relation to spectator safety.
UEFA challenged the jurisdiction of the English courts to hear these claims. On 30 November 2023, UEFA sought dismissal of the claims on the basis that the court either lacked jurisdiction, or should decline to exercise it, or that the claims were non-justiciable.
The defendants, relying on CPR Part 11.1, contended that the English courts had no jurisdiction to determine the claims, as doing so would necessitate an assessment of the lawfulness or validity of acts carried out by French state authorities. They invoked the Foreign Act of State Doctrine, arguing that judicial scrutiny of executive acts by a foreign state (including those arising under an international treaty, which in this instance was the Saint-Denis Convention) was impermissible. The central legal issue at this stage was whether the court should accept the reliance of the defendants on this doctrine as a decisive procedural argument that would dispose of the claims at a preliminary stage.
The court emphasised that the application was not a determination of the substantive merits of the case but rather a jurisdictional challenge. Under CPR Part 11, the court was required to consider the arguments on the basis of limited evidence and pleadings. It observed that while many factual disputes remained unresolved, the focus of the decision was whether the interpretation of the doctrine by the defendants was sufficient to warrant dismissal of the claims.
The ruling examined established legal authority, including Belhaj v Straw[2017] AC 964, [134]., which affirms that the doctrine generally prevents domestic courts from adjudicating upon the acts of executive authorities of foreign states. However, the court identified the following exceptions:
- Where the issue at hand concerns only the existence of an act, without questioning its legal validity or effectiveness.
- Where any challenge to a foreign act is incidental or collateral, rather than forming the core subject matter of the claim.
The defendants maintained that all acts undertaken by French state authorities – including the policing measures and official decisions – should trigger the protection of the doctrine. By contrast, the claimants argued that not every act in question fell within its scope and, in any event, that the recognised exceptions applied. The court was unconvinced by the broad assertion put forward by the defendants that the doctrine should operate as an absolute bar to the claims at this stage, particularly given the incomplete state of the pleadings and evidentiary record.
The court also considered the applicable law. Initially, the claimants assumed that French law governed all aspects of the claim, but it later emerged that certain ticket contracts might be subject to English law. The issue of applicable law, however, was deferred until after the court determined whether the Foreign Act of State Doctrine precluded the claims.
A detailed factual narrative was presented, describing the failings in crowd management – particularly at a bottleneck known as ASP3 – the delays in ticket checks and security screening, and the subsequent disorder that resulted in injuries. Multiple reports, including an independent review, were cited, highlighting organisational failures by UEFA and the shortcomings of the policing strategy. While there were differences between reports regarding the precise allocation of responsibility, there was broad consensus on the mismanagement of the event.
Following an assessment of the procedural framework, relevant legal authorities, factual record, and competing arguments concerning the scope of the Foreign Act of State Doctrine (including its exceptions), the court concluded that the defendants had failed to establish that the court lacked jurisdiction. Its finding was that it remained arguable that the doctrine did not operate as an absolute bar to the claims proceeding, particularly considering its limitations and exceptions. Consequently, the application of the defendants to dismiss the claims on jurisdictional grounds was rejected. The court invited the parties to submit further directions, including the filing of a defence and any additional acknowledgements of service.