A Saudi diplomat cannot rely on diplomatic immunity to protect him from an employment tribunal case brought by a domestic worker, the Supreme Court has held.
The worker, Cherrylin Reyes, said she was expected to work 18 hours a day, seven days a week and forbidden from leaving the house except with a family member. She has since been recognised by the Home Office as a victim of trafficking.
The court found that the employment of a private domestic worker performing the role that Reyes did was not within the official functions of a diplomat and therefore no immunity could be claimed once the diplomat left his post.
It held, therefore, that the employment tribunal does have jurisdiction to hear Reyes’ claims of direct and indirect race discrimination, unlawful deductions from wages (failure to pay the national minimum wage), and breach of the Working Time Regulations, in Reyes v Al-Malki & Anor [2017] UKSC 61.
Fittingly, the judgment was handed down on Anti Slavery Day 2017, this week.
Zubier Yazdani, partner at Deighton Pierce Glynn, who acted for the migrant workers’ charity Kalayaan, which intervened in the case, said: ‘The Supreme Court has sent out a clear signal that immunity no longer means impunity. Diplomats should expect to be held accountable in the UK when they exploit their domestic workers.’
Also this week, the Supreme Court dismissed the Foreign Secretary’s appeal in Benkharbouche v Foreign Secretary [2017] UKSC 62, ruling that state immunity did not prevent two domestic workers bringing employment tribunal claims against their employers, the Sudanese and Libyan Embassies.
