Case 2203623/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Hart & Ms L Aboagye For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 2203623/2021
- Decision date
- 23 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brown Appearances
- Venue
- Central London
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms N Hart & Ms L Aboagye For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant brought complaints of unlawful deductions from wages against Malaysia. The public preliminary hearing determined state immunity issues, including whether the Claimant's employment or claim involved acts of sovereign authority and whether section 4(2)(a) of the State Immunity Act 1978 could be read down in light of Articles 6 and 14 ECHR.
The Tribunal found that the Claimant's employment was not an act of sovereign authority and that the claim did not involve an act engaging sovereign authority. However, it held that the Respondent had state immunity because the Claimant was a citizen of Malaysia, and that it was not possible to read down section 4(2)(a) SIA 1978 so that it did not apply to permanent residents of the UK.
The unlawful deductions from wages claim was therefore dismissed. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment dismissed the claim at a public preliminary hearing because the Respondent had state immunity; the underlying unlawful deductions complaint was not determined on its merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- section 1(1) SIA 1978
- section 4(2)(a) SIA 1978
- section 16(1)(aa) SIA 1978
- section 3 HRA 1998
- Article 6 ECHR
- Article 14 ECHR
- customary international law
- Benkharbouche
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.