Court of Appeal affirms that diplomatic missions are not immune from employment claims
The Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia (Cultural Bureau) v Ms A Alhayali [2025] Civ 1162
ATLEU represented Ms Alhayali.
Ms Alhayali was employed by the Saudi Arabian Embassy in its Cultural Bureau. She was dismissed from her role and in January 2018 presented a claim to the Employment Tribunal, including complaints of unlawful discrimination on the grounds of gender, disability and religious belief. In response, the Embassy asserted state immunity and argued that the Employment Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear Ms Alhayali’s claims.
At a preliminary hearing, the Employment Tribunal applied the Supreme Court’s decision in Benkharbouche and Janah; appeals brought by ATLEU in relation to two domestic workers seeking compensation for domestic servitude. In line with Benkharbouche and Janah the Tribunal found that Ms Alhayali’s role was not close enough to the governmental functions of the Embassy. As such, it could not be described as an exercise of the Embassy’s sovereign function and so claims were not automatically barred on the basis of state immunity. Again, applying Benkharbouche and Janah, the Tribunal found that Ms Alhayali’s discrimination claims could be heard as they arose from EU law.
The Embassy was asked to confirm if it maintained that state immunity applied, or if it conceded that the Employment Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear Ms Alhayali’s discrimination complaints. In April 2019, the Embassy’s solicitors confirmed in writing that the Embassy accepted that the Tribunal had jurisdiction, as such immunity had been waived and preparation began for hearing.
In August 2021, the Embassy’s solicitors wrote to the Tribunal asserting that the Embassy did in fact have immunity as the Head of Mission had not agreed the waiver given in April 2019 and that further, Ms Alhayali’s role at the Embassy was part of its sovereign function and state immunity automatically applied to roles which were an exercise of an embassy’s sovereign authority. The Employment Tribunal did not accept the Embassy's arguments. An appeal was raised to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal agreed with the Embassy's position and found that the Embassy had not waived immunity, but that in any event, Ms Alhayali’s role was an exercise of sovereign function and so immunity applied. However, it also concluded that the personal injury elements of Ms Alhayali’s complaints could continue as they fell into an exception within the State Immunity Act 1978, which bars embassies from claiming immunity in relation to personal injury. Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal found that the Employment Tribunal had been correct in finding that Ms Alhayali’s employment was not an exercise of sovereign function. Whilst some of Ms Alhayali’s role played a part in protecting the interests of the Saudi state and its nationals in the UK, she was nevertheless in an ancillary role.
The Court of Appeal concluded that the exception within the State Immunity Act, relating to personal injury was in relation to personal injury arising outside of the context of employment. But having found that immunity did not apply to the role carried out by Ms Alhayali, this finding has no practical effect. Ms Alhayali’s discrimination complaints can now be heard in their entirety.
The Court of Appeal’s judgment affirms the important principle that embassies cannot automatically rely on state immunity to avoid employment claims.