The Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia (Cultural Bureau) v A Alhayali
[2023] EAT 149
The British Council v Ana-Maria Beldica
17 June 2024
[2024] EAT 92
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A worker sued the British Council in the UK after losing her job in Dubai. The UK court initially said it could hear the case because the British Council would likely have used diplomatic immunity to avoid a case in Dubai, leaving the worker with nowhere else to go. A higher court overturned this, stating that just because the British Council *might* have used immunity in Dubai doesn't automatically mean the UK court can hear the case. The UK court needs more reasons to have jurisdiction.
Key Facts
- •Ana-Maria Beldica, a Romanian national, worked for the British Council in Dubai from 2016-2020.
- •Her employment contract was governed by UAE law and she was considered a 'local employee'.
- •She was unable to pursue claims in the UAE due to her contract not being registered, preventing her from obtaining a labor card number.
- •She lodged claims with the UK Employment Tribunal (ET) for unfair dismissal, discrimination, and redundancy pay.
- •The British Council argued the ET lacked jurisdiction.
- •The ET held it had jurisdiction, reasoning that the British Council's likely plea of diplomatic immunity in the UAE severed the territorial connection and violated Beldica's Article 6 ECHR right to a court.
Legal Principles
Territorial jurisdiction of UK employment law requires a closer connection with Great Britain than the place of work (Lawson v Serco).
Lawson v Serco [2006] UKHL 3
A plea of diplomatic immunity alone is insufficient to establish UK ET jurisdiction for claims arising from employment abroad (Bryant v Foreign and Commonwealth Office).
Bryant v Foreign and Commonwealth Office [2003] UKEAT 174/02
Article 6 ECHR right to a fair trial. Restrictions are permissible if proportionate to a legitimate aim and don’t impair the essence of the right (Benkharbouche v Embassy of the Republic of Sudan).
Benkharbouche v Embassy of the Republic of Sudan [2017] UKSC 62
Extra-territorial application of the ECHR under Article 1 is exceptional and requires acts of diplomatic agents exerting authority and control (Al-Skeini v UK).
Al-Skeini v UK (2011) 53 EHRR 589 ECtHR
Restrictive immunity doctrine: State immunity applies only to acts of sovereign authority (jure imperii), not private law acts (jure gestionis) (Benkharbouche).
Benkharbouche v Embassy of the Republic of Sudan [2017] UKSC 62
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR) governs diplomatic immunity.
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The ET's decision relied on hypothetical reasoning (what would have happened if a claim was brought in the UAE). The ET incorrectly concluded that a plea of diplomatic immunity would have amounted to an exercise of jurisdiction under Article 1 ECHR, and that such a plea would be contrary to international law without sufficient factual assessment. The established case law does not support the conclusion that the lack of recourse in the UAE, due to immunity, inherently establishes jurisdiction in the UK.