A recent decision of the UK Supreme Court on the construction of the expression “property which is for the time being in use or intended for use for commercial purposes” per s. 13(4) of the UK State Immunity Act 1978 is helpful in determining the approach of the English courts in determining whether state property is or is not intended for use for commercial purposes. In particular, this case helpfully illustrates the English courts’ approach of giving deference to the stated intended use of such property by the state in question and discounting the relevance of the origins of such property.