Ms Arya, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2024

This was a preliminary hearing on jurisdiction. The tribunal amended the Respondent’s name to United States of America, found that it was a sovereign state entitled to rely on state immunity, and held that it had not submitted to the jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunals. The claim was therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Claimant alleged that he had been unfairly constructively dismissed. He had worked as a Motor Pool Supervisor at the US Embassy Annex at RAF Croughton from 10 April 2014 until his resignation on 19 July 2023. The tribunal heard evidence from the Claimant and from Ms Rachida Linnard for the Respondent, and described the Claimant as an articulate witness whose evidence about his duties was largely accepted.

Applying the State Immunity Act 1978, the tribunal concluded that section 4 did not assist the Claimant because section 16(1)(aa) excluded the claim. It held that the Claimant was a member of the US Mission who was not a diplomatic agent, and that his Motor Pool Supervisor role was sufficiently close to the sovereign or governmental functions of the US Mission to amount to the exercise of sovereign authority. The tribunal relied on the reasoning in Benkharbouche and Holland v Lampen-Wolfe, and said it was not necessary to go on to consider section 16(1)(aa)(ii).

In reaching that conclusion, the tribunal found that the Claimant’s duties went beyond basic driving and fleet supervision. It accepted that he couriered sealed envelopes and travel documents, organised transport linked to the Mission’s operations, supervised and trained drivers, managed transport requirements for a busy post, and devised and delivered Driver Familiarisation Training for US Direct Hires and dependants. On that basis, the tribunal held that the entire Motor Pool Supervisor element of the role represented the exercise of sovereign authority and dismissed the claim.