1 See eg Trendtex Trading Corporation v Central Bank of Nigeria [1977] 2 WLR 356 (CA).Google Scholar

2 As one writer has noted, ‘consuls are in principle distinct in function and legal status from diplomatic agents…[and] are not accorded the [same] type of immunity…Consular functions are very varied indeed and include the protection of the interests of the sending state and its nationals [and] the development of economic and cultural relations…’ Brownlie, IPrinciples of Public International Law (5th ednOUP Oxford 1998) 364Google Scholar. In Arab Republic of Egypt v Gamal-Eldin [1996] 2 All ER 237 the UK Employment Appeal Tribunal rejected an argument that a government administered medical office was ‘maintained for commercial purposes’. The object of the office was to treat patients who had been referred by the Government and all expenses of the office were borne by the foreign State (at 247).Google Scholar

3 Australian Law Reform Commission, Report on Foreign State Immunity No 24 (1984) 55, 58–9; Fox, HThe Law of State Immunity (OUP Oxford 2002) 309.Google Scholar

4 The Courts will treat as conclusive a statement from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as to whether a place of employment forms part of the premises of the mission; see Arab Republic of Egypt v Gamal-Eldin [1996] 2 All ER 237, 245 (UKEAT); Glinoer v Greek School of London [1998] UKEAT 1003–98–2004 (20 Apr 1998).Google Scholar

5 Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460, 476.Google Scholar

6 [1983] ICR 221 (UKEAT).Google Scholar

7 [1983] ICR 221, 229.Google Scholar

8 Baz v Government of Kuwait [2000] UKEAT 1234_99_1907 (19 July 2000) para 19.Google Scholar

9 [1983] ICR 221, 229.Google Scholar

10 Interestingly, the Court of Appeal has stated that the Act did not involve ‘a different approach to sovereign immunity from that which has developed under the common law’; Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia v Nasser unreported, 14 Nov 2000 para 15. While this observation may have been true on the facts of that case it is questionable as a general proposition given the differences between the Act and the common law referred to above.Google Scholar

11 Council Regulation (EC) no 44/2001 OJ L 12 16 Jan 2001.Google Scholar

12 Art 19.Google Scholar

13 Art 21.Google Scholar

14 Yendall v Commonwealth of AustraliaGoogle Scholar 107 ILR 591 (UKEAT 11 Oct 1984). One judge recently noted that waiver of immunity is ‘by no means a foregone conclusion, especially in politically sensitive employment cases’; Matthews v Ministry of Defence [2003] 1 AC 1163, 1208 (Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe).Google Scholar

15 Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia v Nasser, unreported, CA, 14 Nov 2000 para 15; Al-Kadhimi v Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia [2003] EWCA Civ 1689 (interpreter, UK permanent resident); Baz v Government of Kuwait [2000] UKEAT 1234–99–1907 (19 July 2000) (patient coordinator, UK national/permanent resident); United Arab Emirates v Abdelghafar [1995] UKEAT 768–94–1007 (10 July 1995) (accountant and interpreter, both UK permanent residents); McLaren v Bahamas High Commission [1994] UKEAT 740–94–2410 (24 Oct 1994) (receptionist, UK permanent resident).Google Scholar

16 Ahmed v Kingdom of Saudi Arabia [1996] 2 All ER 248, 256 (CA per Hutchison LJ).Google Scholar

17 Ahmed v Kingdom of Saudi Arabia [1996] 2 All ER 248, 252 (CA per Peter Gibson LJ).Google Scholar

18 Ahmed v Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia [1996] 2 All ER 248, 254–5 (CA); Mills v Embassy of the United States of America, unreported, CA, 9 Nov 2000; Al-Kadhimi v Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia [2003] EWCA Civ 1689.Google Scholar

19 [2003] UKEAT 1054–02–1004 (10 Apr 2003).Google Scholar

20 See, for further support of this argument, Government of the State of Kuwait v Fevzi [1999] EWCA Civ 1507 where it was noted that a claim for personal injury under s 5 may be ‘a means of avoiding [the] immunity’ in s 16 (Ward LJ).Google Scholar

21 European Communities Council Directive of 9 Feb 1976 76/207/EEC.Google Scholar

22 Government of the State of Kuwait v Fevzi [1999] EWCA Civ 1507; Baz v Government of the State of Kuwait [2000] UKEAT 1234–99–1907 (19 July 2000) para 15.Google Scholar

23 Golder v UK (1975) 57 ILR 200 (ECtHR).Google Scholar

24 See eg Jayetilleke v Bahamas [1994] UKEAT 741–94–1412 (14 Dec 1994). The argument was rejected on the basis that, at that time, the Convention did not form part of English domestic law.Google Scholar

25 (2002) 34 EHRR 12 (ECtHR).Google Scholar

26 Fogarty v The United Kingdom (2002) 34 EHRR 12 para 37.Google Scholar

27 ibid para 38.

28 Fox The Law of State Immunity 298, 534. Note that the remedy of reinstatement is expressly excluded from the Australian immunity legislation because of the perceived greater interference with a foreign State's organization and administration (Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 (Cth) s 29(2)).Google Scholar

29 Garnett, R ‘State Immunity in Employment Matters’ (1997) 46 ICLQ 81 cited by the Court at para 29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

30 ibid 88.

31 ibid 88–9.

32 Government of Pitcairn v Sutton [1995] 1 NZLR 426 (NZCA).Google Scholar

33 Government of Canada v Employment Appeals Tribunal [1992] IR 484.Google Scholar

34 Government of Pitcairn v Sutton [1995] 1 NZLR 426, 437.Google Scholar

35 Since 1997 there have been no further New Zealand decisions although in Ireland the approach taken by the Supreme Court in 1992 has been maintained; see Geraghty v Embassy of Mexico [1998] ELR 310 (Irish Employment Appeals Tribunal) and O'Shea v The Italian Embassy (Irish Office of the Director of Equality Investigations 20 Dec 2001) available at <http://www.odei.ie/2001/DEC-E2001.040.pdf>..>Google Scholar

36 Garnett, , above n 29, 90.Google Scholar

37 X v Argentina 114 ILR 502 (Federal Labour Court 3 July 1996); Muller v United States of America 114 ILR 513 (Regional Labour Court of Hesse 11 May 1998).Google Scholar

38 Garnett, , above n 29, 98–100.Google Scholar

39 Canada v Cargnello 114ILR 559 (Court of Cassation 20 Apr 1998).Google Scholar

40 Garnett, , above n 29, 90–8.Google Scholar

41 Robinson v Kuwait Liaison Office (1997) 145 ALR 68 (Industrial Relations Court of Australia).Google Scholar

42 Thomas and Consulate General of India [2002] NSWIR Comm 24 (New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission 22 Feb 2002).Google Scholar

43 Greco v Holy See (State of the Vatican City), unreported, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Charbonneau J, 17 Nov 2000.Google Scholar

44 ibid para 6.

45 El-Ansari c Maroc, unreported, Court of Appeal of Quebec, 1 Oct 2003.Google Scholar

46 Butcher v Saint Lucia 79 ACWS (3d) 815 (Ontario Court of Justice General Division 13 May 1998) affirmed 87 ACWS (3d) 800 (Ontario Court of Appeal 15 Apr 1999). The Court noted that ‘a Consul General represents a State in the same way as an Ambassador’ and it would be a serious intrusion on the State's sovereignty if a local court were to adjudicate on the right of a State to determine who will be in charge of its missions.Google Scholar

47 Andora v Venezuela [1998] Jahrbuch des Schweizerischen Arbeitsrechts 298 (Swiss Federal Tribunal 16 May 1997); Ruiz v Nicaragua (Swiss Federal Tribunal 22 Nov 2001), A v Republic of X (Swiss Federal Tribunal 17 Jan 2003) both available at <http://www.bger.cb> and Driver X v Kuwait [2003] Jahrbuch des Schweizerischen Arbeitsrechts 468 (Labour Court of Geneva 5 Dec 2002). I am grateful to Mr Gloor, Werner, President of the Geneva Labour Court for these references.+and+Driver+X+v+Kuwait+[2003]+Jahrbuch+des+Schweizerischen+Arbeitsrechts+468+(Labour+Court+of+Geneva+5+Dec+2002).+I+am+grateful+to+Mr+Gloor,+Werner,+President+of+the+Geneva+Labour+Court+for+these+references.>Google Scholar

48 Arias v Venezuela (2000) 31 Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 262 (District Court of the Hague 4 Feb 1998).Google Scholar

49 El-Hadad v Embassy of the United Arab Emirates 216 F 3d 29, 33–4 (DC Cir 2000); Ferdman v Consulate General of Israel 1999 US Dist LEXIS 1775 (ND 111 17 Feb 1999).Google Scholar For a detailed discussion of the United States position see Garnett, ‘The Perils of Working for a Foreign Government: Foreign Sovereign Immunity and Employment’ (1998) 29 California Western International Law Journal 133.Google Scholar

50 Barrandon v USA 116ILR 622 (Court of Cassation 10 Nov 1998).Google Scholar

51 Coco v State of Argentina 113 ILR 491 (Court of Cassation 2 Apr 1996)Google Scholar

52 Saignie v Embassy of Japan 113 ILR 492 (Court of Cassation 11 Feb 1997).Google Scholar

53 See, eg, Pingel, I ‘Immunity de juridiction et contrat de travail: du nouveau’ [2003] Journal de Droit International 1115.Google Scholar

54 Brazilian Embassy Employment Case 116 ILR 625 (11 May 1984).Google Scholar

55 Xv State of Israel, 13 Nov 2002 extracted in Pingel n 53 above, 1127–9.Google Scholar

56 It is interesting to note that in UK Government instructions to its missions abroad, mission heads are specifically requested to consider, when deciding whether to assert immunity from foreign jurisdiction in an employment suit, the position of the employee and in particular, whether he or she performs a ‘public function’. See Fox, ‘Employment Contracts As an Exception to State Immunity: Is All Public Service Immune?’ (1995) 66 British Yearbook of International Law 97, 167–8. Hence, there is some UK state practice in support of the distinction between superior and inferior mission personnel for the purposes of state immunity claims.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

57 (1991) H (2) YBILC 13.Google Scholar

58 United Nations, Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property 1–5 March 2004 General Assembly Official Records Fifty-Ninth Session Supplement No. 22 (A/59/22) available at <http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N04/275/41/PDF/N0427541.pdf>..>Google Scholar

59 (1991) H (2) YBILC 13, 42–3.Google Scholar

60 ibid.

61 [2003] UKEAT 174–02–1003 (10 Mar 2003).Google Scholar

62 Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (UK); Equal Pay Act 1970 (UK); Employment Rights Act 1996 (UK); Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (UK).Google Scholar

63 State Immunity Act 1978 (UK) s 3(3)(a).Google Scholar