Case 2200107/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Qatar Embassy — 2024
- Case reference
- 2200107/2023
- Decision date
- 19 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brown Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought an unfair dismissal claim against the Qatar Embassy, where he had worked as a Protocol Officer and Coordinator of Public Relations. The tribunal heard evidence about his duties, including greeting guests at airports, assisting with interpretation at immigration when needed, and applying protocol for members of the Qatari Royal Family.
The tribunal found that the dismissal itself for gross misconduct was in the nature of a private act and was not said to be pursuant to governmental policy. It then considered whether the employment itself was an act of sovereign authority.
Applying the State Immunity Act 1978 and Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia v Al Hayali, the tribunal found that the claimant's role in greeting Royal Family members, accompanying them to immigration, interpreting, and identifying them to immigration officials corresponded to diplomatic mission functions or was sufficiently close to those functions. It concluded that the employment was an act of sovereign authority, so the claim was barred by state immunity and dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim because it found the claimant's employment was an act of sovereign authority and the claim was barred by state immunity. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- State Immunity Act 1978 s 1(1)
- State Immunity Act 1978 s 1(2)
- State Immunity Act 1978 s 4
- State Immunity Act 1978 s 16
- State Immunity Act 1978 (Remedial) Order 2023
- Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia v Al Hayali [2023] EAT 149
- sufficiently close
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.