Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Libya (Appellants) v Janah (Respondent)

Case

[2017] UKSC 62


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Libya (Appellants) v Janah (Respondent) [2017] UKSC 62 [2017] UKSC 62

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This appeal involved a challenge to the State Immunity Act 1978. The two respondents, Minah Janah and Fatimah Benkharbouche, were domestic staff of the Libyan and Sudanese governments at their embassies in London. They were dismissed from their employment and brought claims in the Employment Tribunal. The tribunals dismissed the claims on the basis that the governments were entitled to state immunity. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the provisions of the State Immunity Act which applied to the respondents were incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Court of Appeal affirmed this decision. The appeal to the Supreme Court concerned two provisions of the State Immunity Act. Section 4(2)(b) provided that a state was immune from proceedings relating to a contract of employment if the employee was neither a national of the United Kingdom nor resident there at the time when the contract was made. Section 16(1)(a) provided that a state was immune from proceedings concerning the employment of members of a diplomatic mission, including administrative, technical and domestic staff. The question for the Supreme Court was whether these provisions were consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Supreme Court held that sections 4(2)(b) and 16(1)(a) of the State Immunity Act were inconsistent with article 6 of the Human Rights Convention. The Court found that the employment of the respondents was not an exercise of sovereign authority, and therefore their employers were not entitled to immunity in relation to these claims. The Court also found that the discrimination in section 4(2)(b) was unjustifiable. The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal. The two cases were remitted to the Employment Tribunal to determine the claims based on European Union law on their merits.
Details

Areas of Law

  • International Law

  • Human Rights Law

Legal Concepts

  • State Immunity

  • Access to Court

  • Customary International Law

  • Jurisdiction

  • Discrimination