The respondents had been found liable for acts of discrimination against the claimant whom they employed as a domestic servant. The first respondent was a Sudanese diplomat at the time and asserted on appeal that he was entitled to diplomatic immunity under Art Diplomatic and Privileges Immunity Act 1964, incorporating the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. As the respondent’s diplomatic posting ended during the period of the claimant’s employment immunity was limited to the exercise of his functions as a member of a mission.

Although the EAT recognised that some matters ancillary to the central functions of the mission would be included in the protection and that there is “a spectrum”, it found that the act of employing a domestic servant could not be considered part of the function of a diplomat in his mission.

Furthermore as the acts complained of were centrally discrimination it could not be argued that acts of that nature could be regarded as having been carried out in the exercise of the functions of a mission. Accordingly the appeal was dismissed. http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2012/0424_11_2012.html