A recent ruling by the London Court of Appeal against Saudi Arabia’s embassy marks a possible turning point for state immunity in workplace disputes involving foreign missions in the UK. The case centred on a former embassy worker who sued the Saudi mission for discrimination and harassment. Traditionally, embassies and foreign states have claimed immunity from such claims under the UK’s State Immunity Act, arguing that UK courts can’t hear employment disputes tied to diplomatic posts.
However, the Court of Appeal ruled that Saudi Arabia could not use state immunity as a blanket shield in this type of employment dispute, particularly where the employee worked in a non-sovereign, administrative capacity. The court emphasised that state immunity is not absolute—if the job itself isn’t about government acts (such as policy or diplomacy, versus regular administrative work), then the employee should have the right to sue.
Legal experts view this as a significant development: foreign embassies may now face more workplace claims in UK courts, with less automatic protection simply because they are “states.” The ruling could prompt missions to reassess their contracts and workplace policies, and may influence decisions by courts in other countries addressing similar issues.
Where the legal industry reads first.
Enjoyed this article? Get the biggest legal industry updates, deals, appointments, insights and expert interviews in your inbox, free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.From Legal Desire
Is your firm the one being cited, or the one being skipped?
We ran the test. On several everyday legal questions, software companies are answering and law firms are not. We help firms fix that, and we build the technology behind the practice.
