In Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia (Cultural Bureau) v Costantine, an administrative employee brought claims for religious discrimination and harassment following her dismissal. The Embassy argued that it was immune from UK tribunal jurisdiction under state immunity rules, which generally protect foreign states from being sued in UK courts.
The key legal issue was whether the employee’s role involved governmental functions, which would entitle the Embassy to immunity, or whether her duties were purely administrative, meaning she could pursue her claim. It follows another recent decision on state immunity in an employment context.
The Supreme Court ruled that state immunity does not automatically apply to all embassy employees. While diplomatic agents and staff performing governmental or security-sensitive functions may be protected, those in administrative or clerical roles are not.
The Court found that the employee’s duties supported the embassy’s operations but did not involve the exercise of sovereign authority. As a result, she was entitled to bring her claim in the UK tribunal.
The Court also confirmed that UK courts must actively assess whether state immunity applies, even if the state does not engage with the proceedings. The Court of Appeal had wrongly dismissed the case without considering this issue.
The issues in this case will not impact on most employers in the UK. However, foreign embassies and diplomatic missions cannot assume automatic immunity from employment claims. The nature of an employee’s role, not their workplace, is the key factor in determining whether immunity applies.