Mr K Pal, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2024

The claimant, Mr R Fatihi, brought complaints including constructive unfair dismissal, race, sex, age and marriage discrimination, equal pay, and unlawful deductions from wages against the Embassy of the State of Kuwait. At the start of the hearing, the claimant accepted that the correct respondent was the Government of the State of Kuwait. The tribunal therefore dealt only with state immunity and jurisdiction, not the substantive merits of the claims.

The tribunal found that the claimant worked as an Academic Adviser at the Cultural Office from 15 June 2014 and that his duties included acting as a point of contact for students, gathering and processing documents, dealing with guarantee letters, allowance requests, tuition fee invoices, attendance warnings, holiday approvals, and course-change requests. It also found that he had represented the Cultural Office in a dispute at York University and had travelled to Kuwait as a representative to explain the UK university application process.

Applying the State Immunity Act 1978 as amended, and following Benkharbouche and Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia v Al Hayali, the tribunal considered whether the claimant’s functions were sufficiently close to the governmental functions of the mission under Article 3 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. It held that the claimant’s preliminary checking and sifting work, together with the York and Kuwait trips, formed part of the sovereign functions of the mission. The tribunal noted that it did not need to decide any separate complaint that the conduct complained of was itself an act of sovereign authority, because the immunity point was resolved on the character of the employment functions.

The tribunal concluded that at least some of the claimant’s functions during his employment were sufficiently close to the governmental functions of the mission that the employment was an exercise of sovereign authority. On that basis, the claimant’s claims were barred by state immunity and the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider them. All claims were dismissed.