Claimant v Francisco Jose Masis Holdridge
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim against the First Respondent was struck out because he retained residual diplomatic immunity under Article 39(2) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. All alleged acts occurred during and in the context of his employment as a serving diplomat at the Embassy, and were therefore performed in the exercise of his functions as a member of the mission.
The claim against the First Respondent was struck out because he retained residual diplomatic immunity under Article 39(2) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. All alleged acts occurred during and in the context of his employment as a serving diplomat at the Embassy, and were therefore performed in the exercise of his functions as a member of the mission.
The claim against the First Respondent regarding holidays was struck out because he retained residual diplomatic immunity under Article 39(2) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The alleged acts of changing holiday authorisation dates occurred during and in the context of his employment as a serving diplomat at the Embassy.
Facts
The Claimant worked as a Secretary Administrative at the Embassy of Costa Rica for approximately 3 years. She alleged that the First Respondent, Francisco Jose Masis Holdridge (consul and counsellor), discriminated against her on grounds of sex and age through workplace conduct including disrespectful treatment, attempting to change her holiday dates, speaking rudely, throwing papers, and undermining her work. All alleged acts occurred in the workplace during the First Respondent's time as a serving diplomat. The Second Respondent Embassy did not participate in proceedings despite being properly served.
Decision
The Tribunal struck out the claims against the First Respondent on the basis that he retained residual diplomatic immunity under Article 39(2) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The Tribunal found that all alleged acts were performed in the exercise of his functions as a member of the diplomatic mission, as they occurred solely in the context of the Claimant's employment at the Embassy and involved the Respondent giving instructions, allocating duties, and making decisions relating to her work on behalf of the sending state.
Practical note
Residual diplomatic immunity under Article 39(2) VCDR extends to workplace discrimination claims where all alleged acts occurred in the exercise of the diplomat's official functions at the mission, even if those acts were allegedly discriminatory.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2210796/2023
- Decision date
- 12 September 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- No
Employment details
- Role
- Secretary Administrative
- Service
- 3 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No