Proceedings were begun against Mr Smith, a member of the administrative staff of the Canadian High Commission in London, claiming damages under a private tenancy agreement. As the proceedings were commenced, he enjoyed the same immunity under the Diplomatic Immunities (Commonwealth Countries and Republic of Ireland) Act 1952 as the diplomatic staff of an ambassador. Under the Act of 1708, that immunity was absolute. By the time of the hearing, however, the Acts of 1708 and 1952 had been replaced by the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964, which conferred immunity on administrative and technical staff only in respect of acts done in the course of their duties.
Held: He was entitled only to the limited immunity under the Act of 1964.
Mr Smith was held to be entitled only to the limited immunity under the Act of 1964. As Diplock LJ point out by way of analogy: ‘if the defendant had ceased to be en poste while the plaint was still outstanding the action could then have proceeded against him.’
Citations:
[1965] 2 All ER 881, [1965] 3 WLR 380, [1966] 1 QB 426
Statutes:
Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
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.
International, Jurisdiction
Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.645786
