Malaysian diplomats in London have failed to stop an employment tribunal pay claim being brought by a driver of the royal family and other VIPs.
They sought to argue that the case should not proceed on the basis of “state immunity” from such legal action.
But an employment judge rejected their argument.
The driver, named in tribunal documents as Mr K Onurcan, had sought to bring an employment tribunal case for alleged “breach of contract and unlawful deductions from wages”.
He had been employed since 2001 as a driver at the Malaysian High Commission in London under the “locally recruited staff scheme”.
His job was to drive the Malaysian High Commisioner, members of the Malaysian Royal Family, senior members of the Malaysian government and others diplomats, to and from official functions, dinners, receptions and airports.
For the VIPs flying into Britain, he had clearance to drive into the secure area of Luton airport to meet them directly off the plane.
Mr Onurcan was part of the motorcade team for their Majesties Seri Paduka Baginda The Yang Di-Pertuan Agong and Seri Paduka Baginda the Raja Permaisuri Agong, the King and Queen of Malaysia, on their visit to Britain in October 2022.
Malaysian diplomats argued the driver should not be able to bring an employment tribunal case because of the State Immunity Act 1978 and as his work was “sufficiently close to the governmental function” of the High Commission.
This legislation, to protect diplomats, makes a state immune from the jurisdiction of the UK courts except in certain circumstances.
Employment judge Brown ruled the driver’s employment was not an exercise of sovereign authority, his breach of contract claim relating to pay and grade did not “engage the state’s sovereign interests” and it was not barred by state immunity.
The row was over his salary being set at £452 a week, less than he had previously been told, which the diplomats said was due to decisions made by the Malaysian Parliament and Government.
Key findings at the tribunal included:
* Mr Onurcan’s duties did not include “representing the sending State”.
* Contrary to the respondent’s contentions, the driver was not himself “trusted with the welfare” of Malaysian VIPs such as the King and Queen of Malaysia on high-profile and sensitive diplomatic occasions vital to Malaysia’s international interests.
* His interaction with people in his car did not include conducting, or hearing, diplomatic communications, but were confined to everyday conversations such as about restaurants or the weather.
* When he transported a diplomatic bag, a home staff member always accompanied it and was responsible for it.
* His personal security clearance to drive into high security areas such as other diplomatic missions, Parliament, the Foreign Office, and onto London airports’ runways, was “ancillary to carrying out his driving work”.
* He may have been told some sensitive and confidential details of VIP schedules but this was “extremely limited”.
After his ruling, the judge said a short case management hearing would be listed.
