*An appeal from this decision was heard by the Supreme Court on 6 November 2024 and a decision is awaited.
The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) dismissed an appeal by the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia (Cultural Bureau) against an Employment Tribunal decision rejecting their claim of state immunity in a discrimination case. The appellant failed to appear for the hearing, leading to the dismissal of their appeal for non-appearance.
Background:
The facts are straightforward. An employee of the Cultural Bureau of the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia filed a discrimination and harassment claim in the Employment Tribunal on 19 March 2018. The Embassy claimed state immunity, which was rejected by the Employment Tribunal on 30 June 2021. The Embassy appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, which was rejected, leading to an appeal to the Court of Appeal. The appeal hearing was scheduled for 13 March 2024. However, the Embassy’s legal representatives, Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP (“RPC”), ceased to act for them due to non-payment of fees. This led to last-minute complications and a request for adjournment by the Embassy. The Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia (Cultural Bureau) argued that they were actively working to resolve the financial matters with RPC and claimed that the Cultural Bureau lacked the necessary legal expertise to handle the case without professional assistance. The appellant emphasized the complexity of the legal issues involved and the potential diplomatic implications, suggesting that an adjournment would allow them to secure new representation and adequately prepare their case.
On the other hand, the respondent, Antoinette Costantine, strongly opposed the adjournment request. Her legal team argued that financial issues were not a valid reason for delaying the proceedings, especially given the long-standing nature of the case, which had been ongoing for nearly six years. The respondent emphasized the importance of timely resolution and the potential prejudice caused by further delays. They pointed out that the Employment Tribunal hearing was already scheduled for 22 April 2024, and any delay in the appeal would jeopardize this date, potentially causing additional hardship to the claimant. The respondent’s counsel also highlighted the principle that justice delayed is justice denied, arguing that the appellant had been given ample notice of the hearing date since 25 August 2023, and had failed to take appropriate action to ensure their representation
Court’s Decision:
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal due to the appellant’s non-appearance. Lord Justice Underhill, delivering the judgment, emphasized that the appellant had been given ample notice of the hearing date despite which the Embassy failed to take appropriate action to ensure their representation or to make a formal application for adjournment. The court had rejected an informal request for adjournment, insisting on a formal application supported by evidence, which was not forthcoming. Further, the court considered the background of the case and observed that the circumstances with RPC did not justify the appellant’s failure to appear or to properly engage with the court process. The interests of justice and the respondent’s right to a timely resolution were given significant weight in the court’s reasoning. The long-standing nature of the case, which had been ongoing for nearly six years, was a crucial factor in the court’s decision to prioritize the claimant’s interests over the appellant’s last-minute difficulties.