- Diplomatic immunity, binding precedent and leapfrog appeals (Basfar v Wong)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the Employment Appeal Tribunal decide?
- Case details
Employment analysis: The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that the defence of diplomatic immunity applied to allegations that a serving diplomat had trafficked a domestic servant who worked at his diplomatic residence. The EAT also reviewed the doctrine of precedent and concluded that neither the EAT nor the employment tribunal was bound by an earlier decision of the Court of Appeal where the Supreme Court decided the case but on a different ground. The case is now the leading authority on diplomatic immunity in these circumstances—but as the EAT granted the first ever ‘leapfrog’ certificate directly from the EAT to the Supreme Court, with a recommendation that the appeal to the Supreme Court be expedited, it seems likely that this issue will soon be resolved at the highest level. Written by Mohinderpal Sethi QC and James Green, barristers at Littleton Chambers.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial