British Council employee in Dubai wins right to bring UK tribunal claim despite diplomatic immunity
An HR Business Partner who worked for the British Council in Dubai has won the right to bring unfair dismissal and discrimination claims in the UK, after the tribunal ruled that diplomatic immunity in the UAE did not leave her without a remedy.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #territorial-jurisdiction
- #diplomatic-immunity
- #human-rights-act
- #article-6
- #british-council
- #uae-employment
Key facts
- The claimant was employed by the British Council in Dubai as an HR Business Partner from 20 March 2016 to 31 December 2020.
- Her contract was governed by UAE law and she was a local employee, never working in the UK.
- The British Council is a UK-based public body operating as part of the British Embassy in the UAE.
- The claimant was unable to sue the British Council in UAE courts due to diplomatic immunity.
- The tribunal found that the claimant had no effective remedy in the UAE and that the Human Rights Act applied extraterritorially.
- The tribunal concluded that the Employment Rights Act 1996 and Equality Act 2010 applied to the claimant's claims.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working for the British Council in Dubai as HR Business Partner for MENA region.
-
Performance improvement plan
Claimant was placed on a performance improvement plan by her line manager.
-
Sick leave
Claimant went off sick with anxiety and depression until August 2020.
-
Maternity leave
Claimant started maternity leave, ending 14 November 2020.
-
Role suppression notified
Claimant was informed her role was being suppressed and she could apply for new roles.
-
Employment terminated
Claimant's employment ended; she received a gratuity payment.
-
Complaint to FCDO
Claimant wrote to UK Foreign Office about inability to sue in UAE.
-
Embassy response
British Embassy solicitors stated claimant could pursue claim without non-objection certificate.
-
ET1 presented
Claimant presented claim to Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal, maternity discrimination, and redundancy pay.
-
Preliminary hearing
Hearing on territorial jurisdiction held by video.
-
Judgment issued
Employment Judge Klimov ruled that the tribunal has territorial jurisdiction.
The legal issue
Whether the Employment Tribunal has territorial jurisdiction to hear claims of unfair dismissal, pregnancy/maternity discrimination, and redundancy pay brought by an employee who worked and lived in Dubai for a UK-based employer that enjoys diplomatic immunity in the UAE.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that it has territorial jurisdiction to hear all of the claimant's claims.
The key reason was that the British Council, as part of the British Embassy, enjoys diplomatic immunity in the UAE. This meant the claimant could not effectively sue in UAE courts. The tribunal held that the Human Rights Act 1998 applied extraterritorially to ensure she had access to a court under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Consequently, the Employment Rights Act 1996 and Equality Act 2010 also applied.
No compensation was awarded at this stage – the decision only concerned jurisdiction. The claims will now proceed to a full hearing.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you work abroad for a UK employer that has diplomatic immunity in your host country, you may still be able to bring a claim in the UK Employment Tribunal.
- The Human Rights Act can extend UK employment rights to employees overseas where there is no effective local remedy.
- Employers cannot rely on a foreign jurisdiction clause or local law if diplomatic immunity prevents the employee from accessing that country's courts.
- The fact that your contract is governed by local law does not automatically exclude UK tribunal jurisdiction when there is a 'real connection' to Great Britain.
This case shows how diplomatic immunity can create a legal black hole for employees – and how UK tribunals will step in to fill it. The claimant, an HR Business Partner with five years' service, worked for the British Council in Dubai. Her contract was governed by UAE law, and she never set foot in the UK for work. But when she was dismissed during maternity leave, she found she could not sue her employer in the UAE because the British Council, as part of the British Embassy, was immune from local legal proceedings.
What the tribunal decided
The tribunal had to decide whether UK employment laws could apply to an employee who lived and worked entirely abroad. The key was the employer's diplomatic status. Because the British Council could not be sued in the UAE, the claimant had no effective remedy there. The tribunal held that the Human Rights Act 1998 applied extraterritorially to guarantee her right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. That, in turn, meant the Employment Rights Act 1996 and Equality Act 2010 covered her claims.
What the employer could have done differently
The British Council argued that the claimant's contract was governed by UAE law and that she was a local hire. But the tribunal found that the employer's diplomatic immunity was the decisive factor. If the British Council had waived immunity or provided an alternative dispute resolution mechanism, the outcome might have been different. Employers operating overseas should consider whether their diplomatic status leaves employees without a remedy – and if so, take steps to ensure fair treatment.
Why this matters
This decision is a significant extension of territorial jurisdiction. It confirms that where a UK employer enjoys diplomatic immunity abroad, the employee's connection to Great Britain may be established through the employer's own status. The case will now proceed to a full hearing on the merits of the unfair dismissal and discrimination claims. For employees in similar positions, it offers a potential route to justice that might otherwise be closed.
Similar cases
Fiji-based High Commission employee cannot bring UK tribunal claim
A Fleet and Security Manager who worked for the British High Commission in Fiji lost his unfair dismissal claim after the tribunal ruled it had no territorial jurisdiction to hear the case.
CEO working from Poland fails to bring UK unfair dismissal claim
A chief executive who lived in Poland and worked remotely for a UK software firm had his unfair dismissal claim thrown out because the tribunal lacked territorial jurisdiction.
Commodities inspector never worked in UK: tribunal dismisses all claims
A commodities inspector who never set foot in Great Britain for work has had his unfair dismissal, unlawful deductions and breach of contract claims thrown out. The tribunal ruled it had no jurisdiction because the rights he relied on did not apply to him.
India-based software engineer unable to bring UK claim: territorial jurisdiction limits
An Indian-based software engineer who worked for an Indian subsidiary of Alten Limited has had his unfair dismissal and discrimination claims dismissed because the UK tribunal lacked territorial jurisdiction.