Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
See more information ...
Click here to read the full judgment
Benkharbouche v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
Smart Summary
Factual and Procedural Background
Two Moroccan nationals—“Plaintiff” and “Second Plaintiff”—were employed as domestic staff at the London embassies of “Country A” and “Country B,” respectively. After their dismissals (2010–2012), both filed multiple Employment Tribunal claims alleging, inter alia, non-payment of the National Minimum Wage, breaches of the Working Time Regulations, discrimination, harassment and unfair dismissal.
The Employment Tribunal dismissed each claim on the basis that the foreign states enjoyed immunity under sections 4(2)(b) and 16(1)(a) of the State Immunity Act 1978 (“SIA 1978”). The Employment Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Appeal disagreed in part, disapplying those provisions for claims based on European Union (“EU”) law and declaring the impugned sections incompatible with Articles 6 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”). “Appellant” (the Secretary of State) appealed to the Supreme Court; neither foreign state took an active part at this stage.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether sections 4(2)(b) and 16(1)(a) SIA 1978 are consistent with the right of access to a court protected by Article 6 ECHR and Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
- Whether section 4(2)(b) additionally violates Article 14 ECHR (prohibition of discrimination) when read with Article 6.
- What level of customary international law support is required to justify domestic rules that confer state immunity in employment disputes.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments
- State immunity is absolute unless a specific, widely accepted exception exists; sections 4(2)(b) and 16(1)(a) reflect a “tenable” position within the margin of appreciation permitted by international law.
- Even absent a universal rule, the provisions serve legitimate domestic policy interests by limiting UK jurisdiction over disputes involving non-UK nationals or embassy staff.
- Because immunity removes jurisdiction, Article 6 is not engaged at all.
Plaintiff’s Arguments
- Customary international law recognises only restrictive immunity: foreign states are immune solely for acts jure imperii, not for private-law acts such as employing domestic staff.
- No widespread, representative and consistent state practice supports absolute immunity for embassy employment or for employees who are non-UK nationals/residents.
- Consequently, denying jurisdiction breaches Articles 6 and 14 ECHR and Article 47 of the EU Charter; domestic provisions must be disapplied or declared incompatible.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|
| Compania Naviera Vascongada v SS Cristina (1938) | Statement of absolute immunity in earlier UK law. | Illustrates historic adoption of absolute immunity later supplanted by the restrictive doctrine. |
| The Philippine Admiral (1977) | Shift toward restrictive immunity at common law. | Background showing UK’s move away from absolute immunity. |
| Trendtex v Central Bank of Nigeria (1977) | Confirmation of restrictive doctrine in UK. | Cited as authority that only acts jure imperii attract immunity. |
| I Congreso del Partido (1983) | Need to analyse the “whole context” to classify acts. | Supreme Court applies same contextual analysis to employment contracts. |
| Alcom Ltd v Republic of Colombia (1984) | SIA 1978 must be read against principles of public international law. | Used to justify reliance on restrictive doctrine when construing SIA provisions. |
| Golder v UK (1975) | Article 6 includes access to a court. | Forms foundation for the Article 6 analysis. |
| Ashingdane v UK (1985) | Article 6 rights may be limited if proportionate and pursue a legitimate aim. | Framework for assessing proportionality of immunity provisions. |
| Al-Adsani v UK (2002) | State immunity can justify limits on Article 6 where based on customary law. | Distinguished: immunity here lacked customary-law basis. |
| Fogarty v UK (2002) | Margin of appreciation where international practice divided on embassy staff immunity. | Supreme Court finds subsequent consensus now against broad immunity. |
| Cudak v Lithuania (2010) | Draft UN Convention reflects restrictive immunity for employment disputes. | Relied upon to show emerging customary rule limiting immunity. |
| Sabeh El Leil v France (2012) | Reaffirmed Cudak; required courts to apply restrictive doctrine. | Supports incompatibility of sections 4(2)(b) and 16(1)(a). |
| Germany v Italy (ICJ 2012) | State immunity derives from sovereign equality; court must decide immunity before merits. | Cited to explain procedural nature of immunity. |
| Jones v Saudi Arabia (UKSC 2007) | Domestic debate on whether Article 6 is engaged when jurisdiction absent. | Issue avoided because immunity not justified on facts. |
| Holland v Lampen-Wolfe (2000) | Courts lack jurisdiction once immunity established. | Distinguished; here no valid immunity existed. |
| The Schooner Exchange v McFaddon (1812) | Early recognition of sovereign immunity for warships only. | Used to trace historical limits of immunity. |
| The Parlement Belge (1879) | Foundation for later absolute-immunity cases. | Shown to be subsequently narrowed and criticised. |
| Berizzi Brothers Co v Steamship Pesaro (1926) | US Supreme Court extension of immunity to commercial ships. | Cited as example of absolute view later abandoned. |
| Segni v Commercial Office of Spain (1987) & related US circuit cases | US follows restrictive doctrine for embassy employment. | Illustrates prevailing international approach contra SIA 1978 provisions. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Judge Sumption, writing for a unanimous panel, proceeded in five main steps:
- Customary International Law Framework. The court identified restrictive, not absolute, immunity as the only internationally accepted baseline: states are immune solely for acts jure imperii.
- Examination of SIA 1978. Sections 4 and 16 confer immunity by reference to nationality/residence or embassy status rather than by classifying an act as sovereign. That drafting technique, though valid domestically, overshoots international obligations.
- State Practice and Opinio Juris. Surveying comparative jurisprudence, multilateral conventions and the UN Draft Convention, the court found no “widespread, representative and consistent” practice supporting absolute immunity for (a) embassy domestic staff, or (b) workers who were not nationals/permanent residents of the forum state.
- Application to Plaintiffs. Employing domestic workers is a private-law act; nothing in their duties engaged sovereign functions. Consequently, Country A and Country B were not entitled to immunity, so domestic provisions denying jurisdiction lacked an international-law basis.
- Human Rights Compatibility. Because the impugned sections barred court access without requisite international justification, they violated Article 6 ECHR. Section 4(2)(b) also failed Article 14 due to unjustified nationality-based discrimination. The same reasoning engaged Article 47 of the EU Charter, requiring disapplication of the provisions for EU-law claims.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The Supreme Court dismissed the Appellant’s appeal. Sections 4(2)(b) and 16(1)(a) SIA 1978 are incompatible with Articles 6 and 14 ECHR and must be disapplied where they bar EU-law claims; a declaration of incompatibility is made for their effect on non-EU-law claims.
Implications: Plaintiffs’ EU-law-based claims may proceed in the Employment Tribunal. While the ruling does not strike down the SIA 1978, it restricts its application, signalling that UK courts will align immunity determinations with the restrictive doctrine and international human-rights obligations. No new precedent on sovereign immunity is created, but the decision strengthens the primacy of access-to-court rights over broad domestic immunity rules lacking customary-law support.
Click here to read the full judgment