On 2 November 2026 the Court of Appeal held that an award made under the ICSID Convention cannot be unilaterally assigned and that an assignee cannot, in the absence of the debtor state’s consent, pursue recognition or enforcement in England and Wales. The decision was handed down in Operafund Eco-Invest Sicav Plc & Anor v The Kingdom of Spain [2026] EWCA Civ 1392.
The three-judge bench (Lewison, Males and Foxton LJJ) dismissed an appeal brought by Blasket Renewable Investments LLC, which had sought to be substituted as claimant after the original award creditors purported to assign their rights under a €29.3m ICSID award. Lord Justice Foxton delivered the leading judgment, handed down remotely at 10.30am on 2 November 2026.
The Court accepted the Commercial Court’s earlier analysis (HHJ Pelling KC) that English registration under the Arbitration (International Investment Disputes) Act 1966 (s.2) does not create substantive rights enabling an assignee to stand in the shoes of an original award creditor where international law does not permit the assignment. The Court therefore refused the CPR r.19 substitution sought by Blasket and confirmed that, absent the state award-debtor’s consent, the purported assignment did not give the assignee enforceable rights in England and Wales.
The appeal raised live issues about the interaction of international arbitration practice, assignment markets and state immunity. The Court reviewed the procedural history of the award, the terms of the assignment agreement and the competing submissions about international law and the domestic statutory framework for registering ICSID awards. It treated the question of assignability as one of substantive international law and public policy: the outcome was that unilateral transfer to litigation funders or assignees cannot be relied on to obtain English enforcement of an ICSID award without the debtor state’s express consent.
For practising barristers the ruling has immediate practical consequences for enforcement strategy and case management in investor-state disputes. Counsel instructed by assignees or funders must now expect challenges to substitution and registration applications where the original creditor has purported to transfer rights without state consent. The judgment emphasises that registration under the 1966 Act preserves the award’s English enforcement effect only to the extent the substantive international law position permits. The decision is likely to affect the secondary market for awards, litigation funding arrangements, and the advice given to clients about transfer mechanisms, choice of law for assignments and the sequencing of enforcement steps.