- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Reyes v Al-Malki & Anor
Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff, a national of the Philippines, entered the United Kingdom on a Tier 5 visa to work as a live-in domestic servant for Defendants, members of a foreign diplomatic household residing in The City. She alleges excessive working hours, confiscation of her passport, confinement to the house, and non-payment of wages. On 14 March 2011 she fled the residence.
In June 2011 Plaintiff filed proceedings in the Employment Tribunal alleging race discrimination, unlawful deductions from wages and failure to pay the national minimum wage. Defendants asserted diplomatic immunity under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (the “Convention”). The Court of Appeal accepted the immunity defence and struck out the claim. Plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.
While the appeal was pending, Defendant’s diplomatic posting ended and the family left the United Kingdom on 29 August 2014.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Defendants continued to enjoy personal immunity under Article 31 of the Convention after leaving their post, or whether only the narrower residual immunity in Article 39(2) applied.
- Whether the employment and alleged mistreatment of a domestic servant constituted a “professional or commercial activity” within Article 31(1)(c), removing immunity.
- Whether allegations of human trafficking altered the scope of Article 31(1)(c).
- Whether service of the Employment Tribunal claim form by post at Defendants’ private residence violated Articles 29 and 30 (inviolability of person and residence).
Arguments of the Parties
Plaintiff's Arguments
- The domestic servitude—particularly if amounting to trafficking—was a “commercial activity,” so Article 31(1)(c) lifted immunity.
- Even if not commercial, any immunity ceased once Defendants left the United Kingdom because their acts were outside their official functions, falling outside Article 39(2).
- Service by post did not infringe inviolability and was therefore valid.
Defendants' Arguments
- The employment of household staff was integral or “conducive” to diplomatic functions and therefore covered by immunity.
- Article 31(1)(c) did not apply because the household employment was not the exercise of a separate business or profession.
- Service of process at the private residence infringed Articles 29 and 30 and was invalid.
Government Intervener's Arguments
- Diplomatic immunity is procedural, not substantive; its scope should remain uniform across states to protect reciprocal interests.
- Service by post does not offend inviolability and is therefore permissible.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Triquet v Bath (1764) | Historical recognition of absolute diplomatic immunity in UK law. | Explained evolution from absolute to codified immunity now embodied in the Convention. |
| Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium (Arrest Warrant) [2002] ICJ Rep 3 | Differentiation between immunity from jurisdiction and liability. | Used to emphasise that immunity is procedural, not a bar to liability. |
| Zoernsch v Waldock [1964] 1 WLR 675 | Scope of immunity before the Convention: distinction between official and private acts. | Provided historical context for Article 31 and residual immunity under Article 39(2). |
| Jones v Ministry of Interior (Saudi Arabia) [2007] 1 AC 270 | Overlap of state and diplomatic immunity and relevance of jus cogens. | Cited to show immunity survives even where serious wrongs alleged. |
| Wokuri v Kassam [2012] ICR 1283 | Interpretation of “official functions” for residual immunity. | Adopted same test for Article 39(2) in present case. |
| Abusabib v Taddese [2013] ICR 603 | Approach to residual immunity in employment claims. | Supported narrow construction of official-function immunity post-posting. |
| Baoanan v Baja 627 F Supp 2d 155 (2009) | U.S. approach to defining official functions. | Reinforced English analysis of Article 39(2). |
| Swarna v Al-Awadi 622 F 3d 123 (2010) | Limits of residual immunity in domestic-worker cases. | Cited as persuasive foreign authority. |
| Propend Finance Pty Ltd v Sing (1997) 111 ILR 611 | Meaning of “professional or commercial activity.” | Adopted to confine Article 31(1)(c) to business activity carried on by diplomat. |
| Tabion v Mufti (1996) 107 ILR 452 | Domestic employment is not “commercial activity.” | Regarded as leading foreign authority, followed in substance. |
| Gonzales Paredes v Vila (2007) | Application of Tabion in trafficking context. | Reinforced non-commercial character of household employment. |
| Sabbithi v Al Saleh 605 F Supp 2d 122 (2009) | Trafficking does not convert household employment into commercial activity. | Used to dismiss trafficking-based commerciality argument. |
| Montuya v Chedid 779 F Supp 2d 60 (2011) | Same principle as Sabbithi. | Cited as consistent U.S. position. |
| Fun v Pulgar 993 F Supp 2d 470 (2014) | Continuation of U.S. line on Article 31(1)(c). | Referenced approvingly. |
| In re Canada Labour Code [1992] 2 SCR 50 | Commercial-sovereign distinction in state immunity. | Distinguished; showed limits of analogy with state immunity. |
| Park v Shin 313 F 3d 1138 (2002) | State-immunity treatment of employment. | Used in comparative analysis. |
| Fonseca v Larren (1991) | Portuguese approach to domestic-servant claims. | Considered but not followed; relied on domestic interpretive method. |
| Pfarr v Anonymous (2011) | German approach to domestic-worker exploitation. | Noted to reject “grave-violation” exception theory. |
| Mohamed X v Fettouma Z (2012) | French decision on household employment. | Cited in support of non-commercial character. |
| Empson v Smith [1966] 1 QB 426 | Effect of change in diplomatic status during litigation. | Analogised to show immunity assessed at time of hearing. |
| Shaw v Shaw [1979] F 62 | Proceedings may continue once immunity ceases. | Applied same principle. |
| R v Secretary of State, Ex p Adan [2001] 2 AC 477 | Uniform treaty interpretation. | Invoked to stress need for consistent reading of Convention. |
| Fothergill v Monarch Airlines [1981] AC 251 | Treaty interpretation principles. | Guided approach to construing Convention. |
| Stag Line Ltd v Foscolo [1932] AC 328 | Requirement of international interpretation of treaties. | Cited by concurring opinions. |
| I Congreso del Partido [1983] AC 244 | Acts jure imperii vs jure gestionis. | Used to contrast state and diplomatic immunity. |
| Germany v Italy (Jurisdictional Immunities) [2012] ICJ Rep 99 | Jus cogens does not override procedural immunities. | Applied to trafficking argument. |
| Namibia Advisory Opinion [1971] ICJ Rep 16 | Evolutionary treaty interpretation. | Discussed by concurring opinion on potential future development. |
| Oil Platforms [2003] ICJ 161 | Use of contemporary international law to construe historic treaty. | Mentioned in separate concurring reasons. |
| Sumitomo v Avagliano 457 US 176 (1982) | Deference to executive in foreign-relations cases. | Noted when considering U.S. precedents. |
| United States v Stuart 489 US 353 (1989) | Limits of executive influence on treaty interpretation. | Referenced in same context. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Service of Process: Delivering the claim form by post to Defendants’ residence did not breach Articles 29 or 30. Mere postal delivery neither restrains a diplomat’s person nor violates the premises.
Official vs Private Acts: The court distinguished between acts done on behalf of the sending state and private activities. Household employment was plainly personal and therefore outside “official functions.”
Residual Immunity under Article 39(2): Once Defendant’s posting ended and he left the UK, only acts performed “in the exercise of his functions” remained immune. Because employing and allegedly mistreating a domestic worker were not official acts, residual immunity did not apply.
Article 31(1)(c) Exception: The majority held that the household employment of a servant, even if exploitative or part of trafficking, is not a “professional or commercial activity” because:
- Article 31(1)(c) targets business or professional enterprises carried on by the diplomat for personal profit.
- Travaux préparatoires show the exception was meant for the rare case where a diplomat “sets up shop.”
- Household consumption of services is not commerce, and trafficking allegations do not alter that characterisation.
Trafficking Argument: The court rejected the contention that international policy against trafficking narrows diplomatic immunity. Immunity is procedural and does not extinguish liability; the proper forum is simply deferred.
Temporal Assessment of Immunity: Relying on Empson v Smith and Shaw v Shaw, the court assessed immunity at the time of hearing, not issuance of proceedings. Because Defendants had departed, no immunity subsisted.
Concurring Opinions: Judge Wilson (with Judges Hale and Clarke) agreed on outcome but expressed doubt about the narrow reading of Article 31(1)(c) and invited international reconsideration of the provision in light of modern anti-trafficking norms.
Holding and Implications
HOLDING: The appeal is ALLOWED. Defendants are NOT entitled to diplomatic immunity in respect of Plaintiff’s Employment Tribunal claims; the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for determination on the merits.
Implications: The ruling clarifies that once a diplomat leaves post, immunity for private acts falls away, enabling domestic workers to pursue claims. The court declined to broaden the commercial-activity exception, but signalled that international law bodies might revisit Article 31(1)(c) to address trafficking concerns. No new domestic precedent on the meaning of “commercial activity” was created because the decision turned on residual immunity.
Alert