BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> State of Kuwait v Fevzi [1997] UKEAT 980_97_1811 (18 November 1997) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1997/980_97_1811.html Cite as: [1997] UKEAT 980_97_1811 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE B HARGROVE QC
MR P DAWSON OBE
MR J A SCOULLER
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
| For the Appellant | MR S LORBER (Solicitor) Messrs Field Fisher Waterhouse Solicitors 41 Vine Street London EC3N 2AA |
JUDGE HARGROVE QC: The Appellant employed a Secretary reporting to Professor Ibrahim Al-Rifaiy the Cultural Counsellor. She worked at the Embassy which is at diplomatic premises. The claim of the Appellant is that there was no jurisdiction because although, in the main, States are not immune in respect of proceedings concerning contracts of employment, that rule is disapplied by Section 16(1) of the State Immunity Act 1978 in relation to the employment of members of the Mission and that term covers members of staff of the Mission and that in turn covers members of their administrative and technical service staff.
Put shortly, the Chairman held that there was a distinction between members of the Mission and employed by members of the Mission. It has to be admitted that at first sight and without hearing full argument on either side, there seems to be some difficulty in reconciling the decision in this case with that reached by the Court of Appeal in Ahmed v The Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia [1996] ICR 25. Although Mr Justice Hutchinson in that case was uneasy about the effect of Section 16(1) on Section 4, but Mr Justice Hutchinson did not dissent.
It is an important matter in this case not least because of the preservation of the invoilability of foreign embassies and it is vital that that should be so, for the continuation of proper diplomatic communications. We shall allow this matter to go forward to a full hearing on the present grounds.
