Case 2204383/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Fireman, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 2204383/2021
- Decision date
- 8 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brown Appearances
- Venue
- Central London
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr J Fireman, Counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal determined issues of state and diplomatic immunity at a public preliminary hearing. It found that the correct identity of the First Respondent was The Government of the State of Kuwait and that the First Claimant was employed at the Military Attache Office of the Embassy of the State of Kuwait in London.
The Tribunal found that the First Claimant's employment was an act of sovereign authority and that her claims were barred by section 1 of the State Immunity Act 1978. It also found that the race discrimination and harassment complaints concerning suspension and investigation were barred by state immunity because they related to acts of sovereign authority.
The Tribunal further found that the individual respondents had residual diplomatic immunity under Article 39(2) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 in respect of the alleged acts, because the acts complained of occurred in the context of the Claimant's employment at the Military Attache Office and were performed in the exercise of their functions as members of the mission. The claims against the individual respondents, and all of the First Claimant's claims, were struck out.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim struck out because the Tribunal found it was barred by state immunity. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The First Claimant relied on Lebanese nationality. The claim was struck out because the Tribunal found it was barred by state immunity. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Harassment | Race harassment complaint relying on Lebanese nationality; struck out because the Tribunal found it was barred by state immunity. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Harassment | Sexual harassment complaint; struck out because the Tribunal found it was barred by state immunity. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Working time regulations | Claim for breach of the Working Time Regulations; struck out because the Tribunal found it was barred by state immunity. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Failure to pay holiday pay claim; struck out because the Tribunal found it was barred by state immunity. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim struck out because the Tribunal found it was barred by state immunity. |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s1 State Immunity Act 1978
- s16(1)(aa)(ii) State Immunity Act 1978
- Article 39(2) Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961
- s5 State Immunity Act 1978
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.