Mr T Lowenthal, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2025

This was a public preliminary hearing on the Respondent's state immunity objection. The Claimant, Mr A Gale, had brought claims said in the background to include unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, race discrimination, failure to pay notice pay, unlawful deductions in relation to overtime pay, and holiday pay. The Tribunal identified the correct Respondent as The Kingdom of Eswatini and considered whether the Claimant's work as a chauffeur at the High Commission in London was an exercise of sovereign authority within the meaning of the State Immunity Act 1978.

The Tribunal accepted that the High Commission was a small diplomatic mission and that the Claimant drove the High Commissioner, other diplomatic staff, senior government figures and members of the Royal Family, sometimes to official events. It also accepted that he could overhear conversations in the car, and that he occasionally delivered files and acted as receptionist. However, it found that the diplomats did not disclose confidential governmental matters to him, that he was not shown to have had significant confidential information in his administrative tasks, and that those tasks were isolated and sporadic.

Applying the State Immunity Act 1978 and the authorities on when mission staff are sufficiently close to sovereign functions, including Benkharbouche, Alhayali, Webster and Lorenzo, the Tribunal held that the Claimant's actual work was primarily that of a driver, comparable to private hire driving, and was not sufficiently close to the governmental functions of the mission. It also found that the Claimant's attempts to introduce business contacts and proposed opportunities in tourism, energy and sugar were his own initiatives and were not work the Mission had asked him to do. The Tribunal therefore concluded that the employment was not an exercise of sovereign authority and that the claim was not barred by state immunity, so it could proceed.