Abusabib v Taddese

Residual diplomatic immunity after a diplomat’s posting has ended is confined to acts performed in the exercise of mission functions. Those functions must be closely related to the functions identified in article 3 of the Vienna Convention, although ancillary activities may qualify where they support the mission.

Employing a domestic servant to perform personal services confined to the diplomat’s home will ordinarily lie at the private end of the spectrum and will not attract residual immunity. Discriminatory or abusive acts concerning that employment are likewise private acts. A diplomatic title, visa or embassy involvement does not by itself make the employment official.

The claimant worked as a domestic servant for the respondents, including a former First Secretary at the Sudanese Embassy. She brought claims including discrimination, harassment, unlawful deductions and breach of statutory employment particulars obligations. The Employment Tribunal found the discrimination and related claims proved and awarded compensation after treating service as effective.

On appeal, the respondents argued that section 2 of the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964, giving effect to relevant provisions of the Vienna Convention, deprived the Tribunal of jurisdiction. The central issue was whether the employment and alleged discriminatory acts were acts performed in the exercise of the former diplomat’s functions as a member of the mission under article 39(2).

1. Appeal dismissed. The proceedings were treated as properly served. The Tribunal had jurisdiction because the residual immunity relied on did not extend to the claims.
2. Under article 39(2) of the Vienna Convention, immunity after diplomatic functions end continues only for acts performed in the exercise of functions as a member of the mission. That residual protection is narrower than the complete immunity enjoyed while the diplomat is in post and should be construed no more widely than the Convention’s words require.
3. The relevant functions must be closely related to those identified in article 3. Ancillary matters may qualify where they support the mission, including arrangements for entertaining nationals of the receiving State, accommodating nationals of the sending State, or enabling the diplomat to devote full time and attention to the mission.
4. There is a spectrum in relation to personal-service employment. A domestic worker performing tasks only in the diplomat’s home ordinarily has too little connection with mission functions. A personal assistant handling official correspondence, diary and travel arrangements may lie at the other end of the spectrum.
5. The employment here was private, notwithstanding the employer’s title, the diplomatic visa, embassy involvement and possible arrangements concerning a successor diplomat. The alleged discriminatory acts could not sensibly be treated as exercises of mission functions.
6. It was unnecessary to determine the service issue or the fallback question concerning the precise dates of the alleged acts and the period of complete immunity after the posting ended.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: dismissed the appeal from the Employment Tribunal’s determination, holding that residual diplomatic immunity did not extend to the employment and alleged discriminatory acts.
• Employment Tribunal: treated service as effective, found the discrimination and related claims proved, dismissed the unauthorised deductions claim for want of jurisdiction, and awarded just over £70,000 compensation.