Ms T Burton, Counsel For the v Mr M Sethi, Queen’s Counsel — 2021

This was an open preliminary hearing on state immunity and the identity of the employer. The Respondent accepted that the correct employer was The Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia (Cultural Bureau). The Claimant’s ET1 pleaded direct discrimination and harassment because of religion or belief, and also included unfair dismissal and unlawful deductions from wages, but the latter two claims were withdrawn.

The tribunal heard evidence about the Claimant’s work in the post room, in the Cultural Affairs department, and later again in the administrative department. It preferred the Claimant’s evidence on the main features of her work: that she did not open the post room mail, that she was unaware she was using the Rasel system, that her post room work was essentially data entry from university invoices and reports, and that her secretarial work for Dr Nassir was limited to basic administrative tasks such as answering the telephone, booking rooms, inviting people to meetings, and arranging refreshments.

The tribunal accepted that the Claimant had been involved in organising Career Day and Graduation Ceremony events and may have had access to some personal details for that purpose, but found that this was purely administrative and did not involve government decision-making. It also found that she did not attend meetings with officials, did not take notes of meetings, and did not perform functions close to the governmental functions of the mission.

Applying the State Immunity Act 1978 and the approach in Benkharbouche, the tribunal held that the Claimant’s employment was not an exercise of sovereign authority. Her functions were ancillary and supportive administrative functions, not inherently governmental acts. It therefore held that the Respondent did not have the benefit of state immunity in relation to the Claimant’s European law claims, which could proceed to a final hearing.