EAT Jurisdictional Points : State Immunity – Diplomatic Immunity
The First Respondent, who had been found liable together with the Second Respondent for acts of discrimination against the Claimant in a hearing of which he said he had not been aware, asserted on appeal that he was entitled to diplomatic inviolability. Since he had ceased to occupy a diplomatic post in the UK, this depended on whether the employment by him of the claimant as a domestic at his home out of which the claims arose could be regarded as an exercise by him of his functions as a diplomat, and whether the alleged acts of discrimination likewise attracted immunity as having been such an exercise of his functions. It was held that employment of a domestic servant at the diplomat’s residence would not normally be within those functions, and this case on its facts was not, nor were the acts complained of, done in the exercise of those functions.
Judges:
Langstaff P J
Citations:
[2012] UKEAT 0424 – 11 – 2012), [2013] ICR 603
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Abusabib and Another v Taddese EAT 2-Aug-2011
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke
Relief from sanctions was given under PD16 and CPR3.9 when evidence in support of a response, but not a draft ET3 response form, was . .
Cited by:
Cited – Reyes v Al-Malki and Another SC 18-Oct-2017
The claimant alleged that she had been discrimated against in her work for the appellant, a member of the diplomatic staff at the Saudi Embassy in London. She now appealed against a decision that the respondent had diplomatic immunity.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Jurisdiction
Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.468962