Claimant v Embassy of the Sultanate of Oman in London
Outcome
Individual claims
This preliminary hearing determined only the question of state immunity. The claim was brought in the first claim form (2200026/2022) alleging direct sex discrimination. The tribunal found the claim was not barred by state immunity and could proceed.
This preliminary hearing determined only the question of state immunity. The claim was brought in the first claim form alleging sex harassment. The tribunal found the claim was not barred by state immunity and could proceed.
This preliminary hearing determined only the question of state immunity. The claimant relied on being British of Iranian ethnic origin and not being Omani. The tribunal found the claim was not barred by state immunity and could proceed.
Victimisation claims were brought in both claim forms. The claimant alleged she was victimised for complaining of sexual harassment and racial discrimination, and that her employment was terminated 10 days after bringing the first claim. The tribunal found the claims were not barred by state immunity and could proceed.
Brought in the second claim form (2205484/2022) alleging the dismissal was unfair and amounted to victimisation. The tribunal found the claim was not barred by state immunity and could proceed.
Brought in the second claim form alleging failure to pay holiday pay. The tribunal found the claim was not barred by state immunity and could proceed.
Facts
The claimant was employed from 2009 as Senior Academic Advisor at the Omani Embassy's Cultural Attaché Office, which dealt with Omani students studying in the UK. Her role was purely administrative: updating databases, answering student queries, forwarding requests to the Ministry of Higher Education, and sending documents to universities. She brought claims of sex and race discrimination, harassment, victimisation, unfair dismissal and unpaid holiday pay. The respondent argued state immunity applied because her employment and dismissal were exercises of sovereign authority.
Decision
The tribunal held that the claimant's claims were not barred by state immunity. Her administrative functions were not sufficiently close to the governmental functions of the mission to constitute sovereign acts—they were ancillary clerical tasks such as any private person might perform. Her dismissal was not an act of sovereign authority. In any event, the respondent had submitted to the tribunal's jurisdiction by filing a substantive defence and case management agenda going beyond merely asserting immunity.
Practical note
Embassy administrative staff performing purely clerical support functions are not protected by state immunity even when supporting a department carrying out governmental functions, because their work does not involve personal participation in diplomatic or political operations.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2200026/2022
- Decision date
- 3 July 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- Senior Academic Advisor
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister