Ms K Liebert, Solicitor For the v Consulate General of Angola — 2022

The Tribunal decided that the Respondent had submitted to the jurisdiction by presenting a substantive ET3 response. The response defended the claim on its merits and did not assert state immunity. The Tribunal inferred that the Administrative Attache who submitted it had the authority of the Consul General, who was Head of Mission, and rejected the contention that the response had been submitted without such authority.

The Tribunal then considered whether the Claimant's employment or dismissal involved sovereign authority. It found that the Claimant's role involved checking factual details in documents submitted with visa applications and recording whether the documents matched the application information. He did not decide whether visas should be granted or refused.

Although the Tribunal accepted that control of borders is a core state function, it found that the Claimant's work was ancillary and supportive to visa decision-making rather than an exercise of sovereign authority. It also found that determining the dismissal issues would not require the Tribunal to sit in judgment on Angola's governmental visa policy. The Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to consider all the Claimant's complaints and that the claim would proceed to a final hearing.