There were two claimants who sought specific disclosure in advance of a preliminary hearing to determine whether their employer benefited from state immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978. The respondent / appellant resisted on the grounds that it could not be compelled to disclose as they benefited from diplomatic immunity and that the specific disclosure was irrelevant. The employment tribunal refused on both points, partly as they were a separate entity from the Kingdom of Kuwait.

On appeal Mrs Justice Ellenbogen allowed one (5) of 8 grounds of appeal: the Tribunal had erred in concluding that, as a matter of principle, a separate entity could not benefit from diplomatic immunity. However she dismissed grounds four other grounds and the fact of allowing ground 5 had no impact on the outcome so the other grounds fell away. Broadly, the documentation put forward by the appellant did not, as they contended, show the appellant was considered as part of the Kuwaiti diplomatic mission by Her Majesty’s Government, nor, if permissible, would the judge be able to infer such a conclusion.