Ms. Fatima Ahmed Benkharbouche (1st Appellant/Claimant) Ms. Minah Janah (2nd Appellant/Claimant) v Embassy of the Republic of Sudan Libya (Cross-Appellant/ Respondent) The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1st Intervener) 4A Law (2nd Intervener) The Aire Centre (3rd Intervener)

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLord Dyson,Lady Justice Arden,Lord Justice Lloyd Jones
Judgment Date05 February 2015
Neutral Citation[2015] EWCA Civ 33
Docket NumberCase No: A2/2013/3062
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)
Date05 February 2015

[2015] EWCA Civ 33



The Hon. Mr. Justice Langstaff, President



Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL



Lady Justice Arden


Lord Justice Lloyd Jones

Case No: A2/2013/3062

Ms. Fatima Ahmed Benkharbouche
1st Appellant/Claimant
Ms. Minah Janah
2nd Appellant/Claimant
Embassy of the Republic of Sudan
Cross-Appellant/ Respondent


The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
1st Intervener
4A Law
2nd Intervener
The Aire Centre
3rd Intervener

Mr. Timothy Otty QC and Mr. Paul Luckhurst (instructed by Anti Trafficking and Labour Exploitation Unit at Islington Law Centre) for the Appellants/Claimants

The Respondent did not appear and was not represented

Mr. Toby Landau QC, Prof. Dan Sarooshi and Mr. Peter Webster (instructed by MS-Legal Solicitors) for the Cross-Appellant/Respondent

Mr. Tim Eicke QC and Ms. Jessica Wells (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor) for the 1 st Intervener

Mr. Arfan Khan and Mr. Tahir Ashraf (instructed by 4A Law) for the 2 nd Intervener

Mr. Aidan O'Neill QC (Scotland) (instructed by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP) for the 3 rd Intervener

Hearing dates: 24 th–27 th November 2014

If this Judgment has been emailed to you it is to be treated as 'read-only'. You should send any suggested amendments as a separate Word document.








A. When is Article 6 engaged?


B. The application of Article 6 to embassy employment disputes


C. Section 16(1)(a), State Immunity Act, 1978


1. Sengupta v. Republic of India


2. Is a rule of the breadth of section 16(1)(a), State Immunity Act required by international law?

(1) International conventions

(a) European Convention on State Immunity, 1972


(b) Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961


(c) UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property, 2004


(2) State practice


(3) Conclusion on whether section 16(1)(a), State Immunity Act is required by international law


D. Section 4(2)(b), State Immunity Act, 1978


E. Remedies in respect of infringement of ECHR




A. Horizontal Direct Effect


B. Should the court decline to disapply sections 4(2)(b) and 16(1)(a), State Immunity Act on the grounds that it is not clear what rule applies in its place as a matter of international law?







This is the judgment of the court. Paragraphs 2 to 68 have been substantially written by Lloyd Jones L.J. and paragraphs 69 to 85 have been substantially written by Arden L.J.


These appeals raise the question whether a member of the service staff of a foreign diplomatic mission to the United Kingdom may bring proceedings in this jurisdiction against the employer state to assert employment rights or whether such a claim is barred by state immunity. This has led, in turn, to a consideration of the compatibility of the State Immunity Act 1978 ("SIA") with Article 6, European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("ECHR") and Article 47, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union ("EU Charter").


Ms. Benkharbouche, a Moroccan national, was employed as a cook at the Sudanese embassy in London. She was dismissed and brought claims against the embassy for unfair dismissal, failure to pay the minimum wage and breach of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The embassy claimed immunity under section 1 SIA. Employment Judge Deol upheld the plea of immunity and dismissed the claims. He considered that the claims were based on an employment relationship of a private rather than a public nature and therefore came potentially within the ambit of Article 6. He also accepted that there was a potential inconsistency between Article 6 and the blanket immunity conferred by the SIA. However, in his view section 16(1)(a) SIA, which excludes from the exception to immunity under section 4 proceedings concerning the employment of the members of a mission, could not be read down in accordance with section 3(1), Human Rights Act 1998 (" HRA") to permit the claim. He also rejected the submission that he should disapply the SIA, since it would be beyond the powers of the tribunal to do so and he did not consider that Article 47 provided a means of enforcing EU rights over and above that provided by the HRA.


Ms. Janah, a Moroccan national who had lived in the United Kingdom since 2005, was employed as a member of the domestic staff of the Libyan embassy in London where her duties included cooking, cleaning, laundering, shopping and serving meals. She was dismissed and brought claims against Libya for unfair dismissal, arrears of pay, racial discrimination and harassment and breach of the Working Time Regulations 1998. Libya claimed state immunity under section 1 SIA. Employment Judge Henderson upheld the plea of immunity and dismissed the claims. It was conceded that Ms. Janah was not habitually resident in the United Kingdom at the time her contract of employment was made with the result that section 4(2) SIA disapplied the exception to immunity created by section 4(1). The employment judge felt unable to decide whether applying section 4(2) to Ms. Janah's case would infringe Article 6. However, she concluded that the grant of immunity pursuant to section 16 engaged Article 6 and that that right had been denied. However, the statutory provisions could not, in her view, be read down so as to accord with Article 6 since to do so would depart substantially from a fundamental feature of the SIA. Furthermore, the tribunal could not decline to give effect to the provisions of the SIA. Although Article 47 was part of national law and directly effective, she considered that it was not for the tribunal to consider what she regarded as a freestanding complaint under EU law. She also considered that there was significant doubt over the enforceability of the EU Charter before the courts of the United Kingdom.


Appeals from the two decisions were heard together by Langstaff J., the President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal. ( Benkharbouche v. Embassy of the Republic of Sudan; Janah v. Libya [2014] ICR 169.) There, as before the tribunals, it was common ground that the SIA on its face appeared to grant procedural immunity from suit. The issues on the appeal were, rather, (a) whether the claims engaged Article 6, (b) if so, whether the statutory provisions could be interpreted in a manner consistent with Article 6, and (c) if not, whether the statutory provisions could be set aside. The President considered that the exercise of jurisdiction over these disputes would not interfere with any public governmental function of the respondent states and although the argument that the SIA struck an appropriate balance might at one stage in recent history have provided a sufficient answer, it no longer did so in the light of the developing extent of the restrictions on state immunity. Accordingly he considered that there had been a breach of Article 6 insofar as section 16 SIA had been applied. He left open the question whether the application of section 4(2)(b) SIA to these claims would also infringe Article 6. Proceeding on the assumption that the application of both of these provisions would infringe Article 6, he considered that they could not be read down in accordance with section 3(1) HRA. However, the provisions of the SIA were also in conflict with the right of access to a court under Article 47 EU Charter which was a general principle and a fundamental right in EU law. To the extent that the employment rights asserted were within the material scope of EU law, namely the claims of both claimants in respect of breach of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and the claim by Ms. Janah in respect of racial discrimination and harassment, the court was required to disapply the infringing provisions of the SIA pursuant to section 2(1), European Communities Act 1972.



The law of state immunity in the United Kingdom is contained, subject to certain limited exceptions, in the SIA. The Act made new provision with respect to proceedings in the United Kingdom against other states. It replaced the common law which until the 1970s had conferred an almost absolute immunity on foreign states but which in the period immediately prior to the enactment of the SIA had adopted a restrictive immunity limited to sovereign activities ( The Philippine Admiral [1977] AC 373; Trendtex Trading Corporation v. Central Bank of Nigeria [1977] QB 529). The Act was passed, inter alia, in order to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the European Convention on State Immunity 1972 ("ECSI"). That Convention embodied a restrictive doctrine of immunity and imposed a treaty obligation on contracting states to implement voluntarily judgments given against them. That scheme is reflected in the provisions of Part I SIA defining the areas of non-immunity and in Part II of the statute which relates to the recognition of judgments against the United Kingdom in other contracting States.


Section 1, SIA confers a general immunity from jurisdiction.

" Immunity from jurisdiction

1 General immunity from jurisdiction.

(1) A State is immune from the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v (1) Mr D Beattie and sixteen others (2) 20-20 Trustee Services Ltd (3) Federal Mogul Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Employment Appeal Tribunal
    • Invalid date
    ...can be relied on “horizontally” in certain circumstances. 58. In Benkharbouche and anor v Embassy of the Republic of Sudan and ors [2015] EWCA Civ 33, it was common ground that the claimants had claims falling within the scope of EU law (including under the EqA); the question was whether th......
  • The Freedom and Justice Party and Ors v The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 19 July 2018
    ... ... Legal Department ) for the First Respondent ... Paul Rogers and ... QC) and Interveners (signed by Shaheed Fatima QC and Rachel Barnes) have been provided to us, ... Lord Clarke agreed, explained in Benkharbouche v Secretary of State for the Foreign and ... Sea Continental Shelf cases (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of ... in Fox and Webb, The Law of State Immunity , 3rd ed. (2015); in Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol ... ...
  • Benkharbouche v Embassy of the Republic of Sudan (Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Others intervening)
    • United Kingdom
    • Supreme Court
    • 18 October 2017
    ...[2017] UKSC 62 before Lord Neuberger Lady Hale Lord Clarke Lord Wilson Lord Sumption THE SUPREME COURT Michaelmas Term On appeal from: [2015] EWCA Civ 33 Appellant Karen Steyn Jessica Wells (Instructed by The Government Legal Department) Respondent (Janah) Timothy Otty QC Paul Luckhurst (In......
  • Mrs S Steer v Stormsure Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Employment Appeal Tribunal
    • Invalid date
    ...v Embassy of the Republic of Sudan (Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Intervening) the Court of Appeal, [2015] EWCA Civ 33; [2016] QB 347, held that it was not possible to read the State Immunity Act 1978 in such a way as to withhold state immunity from an embassy whic......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Scope for damages for data protection violations in the UK widened by the Court of Appeal
    • United Kingdom
    • JD Supra United Kingdom
    • 28 April 2015
    ...[2008] 1 AC 1. 7) Johnson v MDU [2007] EWCA Civ 262; [2007] EWCA Civ 262 8) Benkharbouche and Janah v Embassy of Sudan and others [2015] EWCA Civ 33 9) Since the Lisbon Treaty entered into force in 2009, the Charter has been of the same legal value as the European Union treaties. Much of th......
1 books & journal articles
  • The eu Charter of Fundamental Rights in english law: flickering lights in the twilight of membership
    • European Union
    • La Carta de Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea, veinte años después La aplicación de la Carta por los tribunales estatales. I. Derecho comparado
    • 1 January 2022
    ...examples of a case 52 See e.g. Steer v. Stormsure Ltd [2021] ICR 807. 53 Benkharbouche v. Embassy of the Republic of Sudan and Libya [2015] EWCA Civ 33. 54 Ibid. para 78. 55 Vidal-Hall v. Google Inc (n 35). 56 See ibid. paras 90–94 (per Dyson MR and Sharp LJ). 166 TAKIS TRIDIMAS where the c......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT