Claimant v The Kingdom of Eswatini
Outcome
Individual claims
Preliminary hearing determined only the issue of state immunity. The claim was found not to be barred by state immunity and can proceed to a full hearing on the merits.
Preliminary hearing determined only the issue of state immunity. The claim was found not to be barred by state immunity and can proceed to a full hearing on the merits.
Claimant alleged race discrimination as a Jewish person. Preliminary hearing determined only the issue of state immunity. The claim was found not to be barred by state immunity and can proceed to a full hearing on the merits.
Claim for failure to pay notice pay. Preliminary hearing determined only the issue of state immunity. The claim was found not to be barred by state immunity and can proceed to a full hearing on the merits.
Claim relating to overtime pay. Preliminary hearing determined only the issue of state immunity. The claim was found not to be barred by state immunity and can proceed to a full hearing on the merits.
Claimant stated in grounds of complaint that he had not been paid holiday pay. Preliminary hearing determined only the issue of state immunity. The claim was found not to be barred by state immunity and can proceed to a full hearing on the merits.
Facts
Claimant was employed as chauffeur for the High Commission of the Kingdom of Eswatini from September 2022 to June 2023. He primarily drove the High Commissioner, diplomatic staff, government ministers and members of the Royal Family. He occasionally delivered files within the High Commission, acted as receptionist, and attempted to promote his business contacts to the Mission for potential commercial deals, though these overtures were largely rebuffed by the Mission.
Decision
The tribunal found that the claimant's employment was not an exercise of sovereign authority and his claim is not barred by state immunity. The claimant's functions as a chauffeur and occasional administrative assistant were not sufficiently close to the governmental functions of the Mission. His driving functions were purely collateral to the Mission's sovereign work, and his attempted business promotion activities were personal initiatives not requested or endorsed by the Mission.
Practical note
Employment as a chauffeur at a diplomatic mission, even when driving senior diplomats and royalty, is not inherently an exercise of sovereign authority unless the employee's functions are sufficiently close to the governmental work of the mission, which requires more than incidental contact with confidential matters or important passengers.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2214125/2023
- Decision date
- 27 January 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Chauffeur
- Salary band
- £30,000–£40,000
- Service
- 9 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister