The Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia (Cultural Bureau) v Abir Alhayali

The Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia (Cultural Bureau) v Abir Alhayali

The Employment Tribunal did not err in law in finding that Ms Alhayali’s functions were not sufficiently close to the exercise of sovereign authority to attract state immunity under section 4 of the State Immunity Act 1978. The Embassy is not immune from her EU law-derived employment claims. The question of waiver is academic given this finding. The claim for psychiatric injury falls within the personal injury exception in section 5, but the interaction with sections 4 and 16 means that only claims not excluded by those sections are permitted. The appeal is allowed and the ET’s order restored.

Parties
Appellant/respondent: The Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia (Cultural Bureau); Respondent/claimant: Ms Abir Alhayali
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; decision of Employment Tribunal restored
Legal Topics
State Immunity Act 1978, Employment Rights of Embassy Staff, Waiver of Immunity, Personal Injury (psychiatric), Jurisdiction of Employment Tribunal
Employment Law State Immunity International Law State Immunity Act 1978 Employment Rights of Embassy Staff Waiver of Immunity Personal Injury (psychiatric) Jurisdiction of Employment Tribunal

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia (Cultural Bureau)

Appellant/respondent

Ms Abir Alhayali

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia is entitled to state immunity under section 4 of the State Immunity Act 1978 in respect of Ms Alhayali’s EU law-derived employment claims
  2. 2 Whether the claim for compensation for psychiatric injury falls within the personal injury exception to immunity under section 5 of the State Immunity Act 1978
  3. 3 Whether the Embassy validly waived state immunity by its solicitors’ correspondence

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal did not err in law in finding that Ms Alhayali’s functions were not sufficiently close to the exercise of sovereign authority to attract state immunity under section 4 of the State Immunity Act 1978. The Embassy is not immune from her EU law-derived employment claims. The question of waiver is academic given this finding. The claim for psychiatric injury falls within the personal injury exception in section 5, but the interaction with sections 4 and 16 means that only claims not excluded by those sections are permitted. The appeal is allowed and the ET’s order restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; decision of Employment Tribunal restored

Orders

  • The decision of Bourne J is set aside.
  • The order of the Employment Tribunal is restored.