Case 2200026/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Embassy of the Sultanate of Oman in London and Others — 2025
- Case reference
- 2200026/2022
- Decision date
- 4 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brown Appearances
- Venue
- Central London
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment concerned a public preliminary hearing on state immunity in claims brought by YZ against the Embassy of the Sultanate of Oman in London and two individual respondents. The Tribunal recorded that the pleaded complaints included direct sex discrimination, sex harassment, direct race discrimination, victimisation, unfair dismissal and failure to pay holiday pay.
Employment Judge Brown decided that the First Respondent had submitted to the jurisdiction in both claims. The Tribunal also found that the Claimant's functions were not sufficiently close to the governmental functions of the mission for her employment to be an exercise of sovereign authority, and that the acts complained of were not exercises of sovereign authority.
The result was that the claims were not barred by state immunity. The judgment did not determine whether the substantive claims succeeded and did not make any remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The judgment records a complaint of direct sex discrimination. This preliminary hearing decided state immunity only, finding the claims were not barred; it did not determine the merits. | Other | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The judgment records a complaint of sex harassment. This preliminary hearing decided state immunity only, finding the claims were not barred; it did not determine the merits. | Other | Sex | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment records a complaint of direct race discrimination based on Iranian ethnic origin, British citizenship, and not being Omani. This preliminary hearing decided state immunity only, finding the claims were not barred; it did not determine the merits. | Other | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment records victimisation complaints said to arise from complaints of sexual harassment and racial discrimination, and from dismissal after the first claim. This preliminary hearing decided state immunity only, finding the claims were not barred; it did not determine the merits. | Other | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records an unfair dismissal complaint in the second claim. This preliminary hearing decided state immunity only, finding the claims were not barred; it did not determine the merits. | Other | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment records a complaint of failure to pay holiday pay in the second claim. This preliminary hearing decided state immunity only, finding the claims were not barred; it did not determine the merits. |
Legal tests applied
8 references- State Immunity Act 1978 s1(2)
- State Immunity Act 1978 s2
- State Immunity Act 1978 s4
- State Immunity Act 1978 s5
- State Immunity Act 1978 s14(1)(b)
- State Immunity Act 1978 s16(1)(aa)(i)
- Kuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Company and Republic of Iraq [1995] 1 Lloyd's Rep 25
- Eagle Star Insurance Co. Ltd. v Yuval Insurance Co. Ltd [1978] I Lloyd's Rep. 357
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.