The High Court has set aside a Labour Court determination that the State of Kuwait could not rely on sovereign immunity to prevent an unfair dismissal claim by a former academic adviser at its Dublin Cultural Office.
Mr Justice Barr allowed Kuwait’s appeal on two points of law: the Labour Court had not adequately explained how it resolved conflicting evidence about the adviser’s role, and it appeared to have applied the wrong test under the relevant international law provision.
The case concerns a claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977–2015 by Nada Kanj, whose employment at the office ran from 2007 to 2017. The State of Kuwait argued that the WRC lacked jurisdiction because of sovereign immunity. The WRC accepted that objection, but the Labour Court overturned that decision in July 2019, finding the immunity did not prevent the claim proceeding.
The High Court’s appeal was limited to points of law. It did not decide whether Kanj was unfairly dismissed, nor did it determine whether Kuwait can ultimately rely on sovereign immunity. Instead, it ordered that the Labour Court determination be set aside and the matter returned to that court for a further determination in accordance with law.
Evidence before the Labour Court differed on whether the academic adviser’s work involved government decision-making. Kuwait’s witnesses described the role as including participation in an Academic Committee authorised to make decisions affecting students’ scholarships and studies. They also said advisers played a significant part in administering payments and dealing with educational institutions.
Kanj’s evidence was that about 95% of her time involved paperwork and data entry, and that she had no authority to approve or handle funds. She described her role in payments as checking student details and eligibility before sending requests to the accountant and Head of Office. A former colleague also characterised the work he had performed while covering the role as mainly secretarial and administrative.
The High Court said the Labour Court had summarised the evidence and legal submissions but had not explained why it resolved the conflict in Kanj’s favour. It also found the Labour Court appeared to treat three matters—public powers, governmental authority and whether the work touched on Kuwait’s state business—as a combined threshold. The applicable provision asked whether the employee had been recruited to perform particular functions in the exercise of governmental authority.
The judge said the parties could submit brief written observations within two weeks on the form of the final order, costs and any other matters arising.