EAT Addresses State Immunity and Employment Law in Saudi Embassy Case

Citation: [2023] EAT 149
Judgment on

Introduction

In the case of The Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia (Cultural Bureau) v A Alhayali ([2023] EAT 149), the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) addressed several crucial legal points relating to state immunity and employment law, particularly within the diplomatic context. This article analyses the EAT’s application of legal principles to the key topics discussed in the case, synthesizing the tribunal’s findings and reasoning, and linking them to relevant parts of the provided case summary.

Key Facts

Ms. A Alhayali’s employment by the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia (Cultural Bureau) led her to bring various employment claims, including ones derived from EU law. The Respondent initially asserted state immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978 (SIA). However, following a period during which its then solicitors, Howard Kennedy LLP, accepted jurisdiction over EU law-derived claims, the Respondent later sought to reassert state immunity. This raised the issue of whether the Respondent had validly submitted to the jurisdiction of the ET and, if not, whether it nonetheless enjoyed state immunity, especially in relation to Alhayali’s claim involving psychiatric injury.

State Immunity and Waiver

Under the SIA, foreign states have immunity from UK courts’ jurisdiction, barring specific exceptions. One such exception is if the state has submitted to the jurisdiction (section 2 SIA). This submission can occur through explicit consent or deemed consent where the state takes procedural steps in the legal action, provided such steps are authorised by the head of the state’s diplomatic mission or his delegate (section 2(7) SIA).

Employment Claims and Sovereign Authority

The SIA distinguishes between different types of employment activities within an embassy. Sovereign immunity generally applies to those activities considered an exercise of sovereign authority, while certain ancillary and supportive roles may not invoke such immunity (Benkharbouche). The EAT established that the Claimant’s role, despite being supportive, was sufficiently close to the embassy’s exercise of sovereign authority to attract immunity, impacting the ET’s jurisdiction over her employment claims.

Personal Injury Claims Exception

The SIA also stipulates an exception to state immunity in cases of personal injury occurring within the UK (section 5 SIA). The EAT examined whether this exception applied to claims of psychological or psychiatric injury as part of an employment-related claim.

Outcomes

The EAT upheld the ET’s approach to section 5 SIA in respect of claims for psychiatric injury following the precedent in Ogbonna. In contrast, the EAT concluded that the ET erred in its consideration of whether the claimant’s employment tasks constituted an exercise of sovereign authority and whether the waiver of state immunity by the Respondent was valid. Thus, on grounds 1, 2, and 3 (related to state immunity and waiver), the EAT allowed the appeal. Grounds 4 and 5, relating to whether section 5’s personal injury exception includes psychiatric injury, were dismissed, maintaining the status quo from Ogbonna that psychiatric injury is included within the scope of “personal injury.”

Conclusion

The Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia (Cultural Bureau) v A Alhayali case offers a detailed examination of the interplay between state immunity and employment claims within the UK legal framework. The EAT’s rigorous analysis of legal principles clarifies that a valid waiver of immunity must be explicitly or implicitly authorised by the head of the mission. Furthermore, the decision affirms that embassy roles intimately connected with sovereign functions are protected by state immunity. The case also consolidates the legal position that claims for psychiatric injury are encompassed under the SIA’s personal injury exception, reinforcing a modern understanding of “personal injury” within the context of employment law and sovereign immunity.