Constitutional law

Where the first respondent’s functions as a diplomatic agent had come to an end in London, he had not been entitled to any immunity, under Art 31 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, and the residual immunity, under Art 39(2) of that Convention, could not apply, because the respondents’ employment or treatment of the appellant (a Philippine domestic worker, who had alleged human trafficking) had not amounted to acts performed in the course of the first respondent’s official functions. So held the Supreme Court in allowing the appellant’s appeal against the lower court’s decision that the employment tribunal had had no jurisdiction to hear her employment claims, because the first respondent had been entitled to diplomatic immunity, under Art 31, and the that his wife had been entitled to residual immunity.

Further, the court, in dismissing the respondents’ cross-appeal, agreed with the lower court that there had been valid service of the employment claim on the respondents.