The case concerned claims brought against a member of Saudi Arabia’s diplomatic staff and centred on whether the circumstances fell into the ‘commercial activity’ exception to diplomatic immunity.
The claimant was given an employment contract to work in the defendant’s household but alleged she was treated so poorly she was eventually forced to escape. The Supreme Court held the ‘commercial activity’ exception applied which meant the defendant lost their immunity.
Dyke and McGlaughlin respectfully argue that the majority decision represents ‘a dilution of diplomatic immunity in the English jurisdiction. Overall, the minority’s reasoning is preferable as more consistent with the English courts’ previous approach to diplomatic immunity principles’.
-maryam-naaz-theo-corbett-and-rachel-carter-with-(front-from-left)-arya-vindlacheruvu-and-jessica-ashcroft.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=47f89300_1)
