[citation needed] This rule was commonly expressed by the popular legal maxim rex non potest peccare, meaning "the king can do no wrong".
A landmark case which set a precedent for challenging broad Crown immunity and established tests for the applicability of state laws on the Commonwealth was Henderson v Defence Housing Authority in 1997.
In response, DHA claimed that as a Commonwealth agency the legislation of NSW did not apply to it[2] and further sought writs of prohibition attempting to restrain Mr. Henderson from pursuing the matter further.
[4] The Crown's immunity may also apply to other parties in certain circumstances, as held in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Baxter Healthcare.
Thus, the tort liability of the government is a relatively new development in Canada, statute-based, and is not a fruit of common law.
In 2013, the Supreme Court refused to hear the request of former Lieutenant Governor of Quebec Lise Thibault to have charges against her dropped.
She was being prosecuted by the Attorney General of Quebec for misappropriation of public funds, but invoked royal immunity on the basis that "the Queen can do no wrong".
Judge St-Cyr again rejected her demand, noting that constitutional law does not grant a lieutenant governor the same benefits as the monarch and that, in her case, royal immunity would only apply to actions involving official state functions, not personal ones.
[14] China has consistently claimed that a basic principle of international law is for states and their property to have absolute sovereign immunity.
[15] Chinese state-owned companies considered instrumental to the state have claimed sovereign immunity in lawsuits brought against them in foreign courts before.
China's view is that sovereign immunity is a lawful right and interest that their enterprises are entitled to protect.
As a result, FG Hemisphere applied to collect these fees in order to enforce the earlier arbitral award.
Claimants should establish that the state party has waived their entitlement to immunity at the relevant stage, before proceedings can occur in court.
"[22] The president of the Republic of Finland has immunity from prosecution according to Article 113 of the Constitution, which applies to his official activities.
According to article 11 of the Constitution of Iceland the president can only be held accountable and be prosecuted with the consent of parliament.
[26] Officials who commit torts themselves are not liable, although the State or a public entity has the right to obtain reimbursement from the officers if there is intent or gross negligence on the part of them.
On November 20, 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that it does not have judicial power over the Emperor because he is "the symbol of the State and of the unity of the people".
[28] In Malaysia, an amendment to the constitution in 1993 made it possible to bring proceedings against the king or any ruler of a component state in the Special Court.
This was previously impossible because every ruler of Malaysia was stated to be protected from being brought to court due to their royal status.
Juan Carlos must answer to the supreme court, in a similar type of protection afforded to many high-ranking civil servants and politicians in Spain.
The legislation stipulates that all outstanding legal matters relating to the former king be suspended and passed "immediately" to the supreme court.
It does not concern other members of the Royal Family, except in such cases as they are exercising the office of Regent when the King is unable to serve.
It is a disputed matter among Swedish constitutional lawyers whether the article also implies that the King is immune from lawsuits in civil cases which do not involve prosecution.
[41] Historically, the general rule in the United Kingdom has been that the Crown has never been liable to be prosecuted or proceeded against in either criminal or civil cases.
[43] Proceedings to bring writs of mandamus and prohibition were always available against ministers, because their actions derive from the royal prerogative.
[45] However, civil proceedings can, in theory, still be brought using the two original mechanisms outlined above – by petition of right or by suit against the Attorney General for a declaration.
[50] Some of the odder exceptions for the monarch are included in laws against private persons setting off nuclear explosions, or regulating the sale of alcohol after midnight.
In Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak (1991), the court explained that we have understood the Eleventh Amendment to stand not so much for what it says, but for the presupposition of our constitutional structure which it confirms: that the States entered the federal system with their sovereignty intact; that the judicial authority in Article III is limited by this sovereignty, and that a State will therefore not be subject to suit in federal court unless it has consented to suit, either expressly or in the "plan of the convention".
Rather, as the Constitution's structure, its history, and the authoritative interpretations by this Court make clear, the States' immunity from suit is a fundamental aspect of the sovereignty which the States enjoyed before the ratification of the Constitution, and which they retain today (either literally or by virtue of their admission into the Union upon an equal footing with the other States) except as altered by the plan of the Convention or certain constitutional Amendments.Writing for the Court in Alden, Justice Anthony Kennedy argued that in view of this, and given the limited nature of congressional power delegated by the original unamended Constitution, the court could not "conclude that the specific Article I powers delegated to Congress necessarily include, by virtue of the Necessary and Proper Clause or otherwise, the incidental authority to subject the States to private suits as a means of achieving objectives otherwise within the scope of the enumerated powers".
The abrogation doctrine, established by the Supreme Court in Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer (1976), is most often implicated in cases that involve Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which explicitly allows Congress to enforce its guarantees on the states.