Greylag Goose Leasing 1410 Designated Activity Company v PT Garuda Indonesia Ltd

Greylag Goose Leasing 1410 Designated Activity Company (the applicant) sought to wind up PT Garuda Indonesia Ltd (the respondent). The respondent contended that it was a "separate entity of a foreign State" and therefore entitled to immunity from suit under section 9 of the *Foreign States Immunities Act 1985* (Cth) (FSIA). The applicant argued that the winding up proceedings fell within an exception to this immunity, specifically under section 14(3) of the FSIA. The matter came before the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issues before the Court were the proper construction of section 14(3) of the FSIA and whether winding up proceedings against a "separate entity" of a foreign State fell within the exception to immunity provided by that section. This required the Court to determine whether the exception was confined to proceedings where the foreign State or its separate entity had an interest in property, or if it extended to proceedings concerning the bankruptcy, insolvency, or winding up of a body corporate, including the separate entity itself. The Court also considered the relevance of the Australian Law Reform Commission Report No. 24, which informed the FSIA, in ascertaining the statutory purpose.

The Court reasoned that the literal and contextual interpretation of section 14(3)(a) of the FSIA, supported by the extrinsic material of the Law Reform Commission Report, indicated that the exception was intended to apply to proceedings concerning the bankruptcy, insolvency, or winding up of a body corporate. The Court found that the phrase "proceedings concerning the bankruptcy, insolvency or the winding up of a body corporate" was broad enough to encompass proceedings for the winding up of a separate entity of a foreign State. Therefore, the Court concluded that the respondent was not entitled to immunity from the winding up proceedings.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal, ordering the appellant to pay the costs of the respondent.