State Immunity Not A Shield For All Employee Claims, Rules Employment Appeal Tribunal
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has clarified the scope of state immunity concerning employee claims, particularly those involving personal injury.
• public
Tribunal Upholds Previous Rulings on State Immunity in Employee Claims
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has recently ruled on the complex interplay between state immunity and employment claims, specifically concerning personal injury sustained by employees. In the case of The Government of the State of Kuwait v Mr S Mohamed, the EAT considered whether an employer enjoying state immunity could be held liable for discrimination and harassment claims leading to psychiatric injury.
Key Legal Questions Addressed
The appeal centred on two main grounds. Firstly, whether the exception to state immunity for personal injury claims, as outlined in Section 5 of the State Immunity Act 1978 (SIA), applies to employees working within a state's diplomatic mission when sovereign authority is involved. Secondly, the tribunal considered whether Section 5 covers psychiatric injury, in addition to physical harm.
Following Precedent on State Immunity
On the first ground, the EAT applied the principle of stare decisis, electing to follow established previous decisions of the EAT. Despite a dissenting obiter dictum from a Court of Appeal judge suggesting these prior rulings might be wrong, the EAT found no compelling reason to depart from them. The tribunal emphasised the importance of consistency and legal certainty, concluding that the previous EAT judgments were not "manifestly wrong."
Psychiatric Injury and State Immunity
Regarding the second ground, the EAT was bound by the Court of Appeal's ruling in the case of Shehabi v Bahrain. This established that "personal injury" under Section 5 of the SIA does indeed encompass psychiatric injury. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on this point.
A Complex Area of Law
The judgment highlights the ongoing complexities in determining the extent of state immunity. While the SIA aims to protect states from jurisdiction, specific exceptions, such as those for personal injury, create intricate legal challenges. The tribunal acknowledged that the issue of whether employment claims involving personal injury can escape state immunity when sovereign authority is exercised is a matter that warrants further consideration at a higher appellate level.
The case involved an employee of the Kuwaiti diplomatic mission in London who claimed discrimination and harassment resulting in psychiatric injury. The employer, the Government of Kuwait, argued for state immunity.
The EAT ultimately dismissed the appeal, upholding the original tribunal's decision that state immunity did not bar the employee's claims for personal injury arising from discrimination and harassment.
Read the entire judgment here: The Government of the State of Kuwait v Mr S Mohamed [2026] EAT 20
