The Supreme Court concludes that the State Immunity Act is unlawful since it prevents all employees of foreign embassies bringing claims for compensation against employer states regardless of the nature of the employee’s work.Read More
The Supreme Court found that a diplomat who employed a domestic worker could not be said to have acted within their “official functions” with the result that the Saudi diplomat defendants in the case had lost any immunity from suit the moment they ceased to be in post.Read More
H was a victim of trafficking, and brought proceedings against the respondents before the employment tribunal in relation to their alleged role in her trafficking. The respondents were acquitted of trafficking-related offences in criminal trials and, on that basis, applied to the tribunal for deposit orders against H. The tribunal may choose to make such an order when it considers that any specific allegation, argument or response has ‘little reasonable prospect of success’. The tribunal judge found in favour of the respondents, and ordered H to pay £75 in respect of each of three specific allegations.
H appealed to the Employment Appeals Tribunal, which found largely in her favour and reduced the contested deposit orders to the nominal sum of £1. In particular, the appeal court held:
- That the tribunal judge had made an error of law by stating that a deposit order could be used to order a party to pay a sum which they would find ‘difficult but not impossible to pay’. This would risk deposit orders being strike outs ‘by the back door’ – which is inappropriate given the distinct legal test for a strike-out claim. Given the court’s obligations to comply with Article 6(1) of the ECHR, a deposit order must not impair access to justice. A party should not be ordered to pay a sum (s)he is unlikely to be able to raise. Deposit orders must pursue a legitimate aim and demonstrate a degree of proportionality between the aim pursued and the sum set.
- That the tribunal judge, in finding alleged inconsistencies in H’s evidence for her allegations, erred by failing to consider the possibility of communication difficulties. Where inconsistencies could be explained by badly expressed translations, the court ought grant ‘some leeway’.
- That the tribunal judge erred when he failed to consider, as part of his deposit order decision, that H was a victim of trafficking. In particular, the appeal judgment referred to Articles 12 and 15 of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (which came into force in the UK in 2009). Article 12 imposes an obligation to ensure subsistence for victims of human trafficking, and the judgment held that hefty deposit orders, which diverted victims’ limited resources away from subsistence, could lead to a breach of this obligation. Article 15 requires that victims have access to compensation from perpetrators of trafficking. As employment tribunal proceedings are one means of providing this compensation, hefty deposit orders that render access to such tribunals almost impossible for victims are at risk of breaching this obligation. Therefore, if a claimant is a victim of trafficking, the tribunal must take this fact into account before deciding upon a deposit order against them.
Read the full judgment here
A victim of trafficking is entitled under the Trafficking Directive 2011/36/EU/to legal aid in legal proceedings. Accordingly, a tribunal erred in law when it failed to grant a postponement of a merits hearing to permit the Claimant to access legal aid. A victim of trafficking has a right in EU law to legal aid and the courts and tribunals must give effect to this.
A Claimant who contended that she was a victim of trafficking brought a claim in the Employment Tribunal against those whom she contended were her traffickers. She then applied to the Legal Aid Agency’s Exceptional Case Funding Regime to fund representation at the five day Employment Tribunal full merits hearing. The Legal Aid Agency refused the application on the basis that the client could represent herself and cross examine her traffickers. This was despite the fact that the client was illiterate and did not speak English, and that she contended that she had been kept in domestic servitude for over 10 years and hence was in a position of vulnerability.
The Claimant applied for a postponement of the tribunal hearing to permit her to judicially review the agency’s decision. This application was refused on the basis that legal aid for representation at the Employment Tribunal is not ordinarily available. Upon appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, Shanks J granted the postponement on the basis that the Claimant was entitled to take steps in respect of the judicial review to assert her entitlement to legal representation as set out in the Trafficking Directive.
When contemplating how an employment judge would be able to hear such a case with the Claimant representing themselves, Shanks J’s reaction was, 'What a nightmare!'
The judicial review was not heard following a concession from the Legal Aid Agency that the Claimant was entitled to access legal aid.
The full judgment can be found here
In a strongly worded judgment, The Hon. Mr Justice McCloskey, President and Upper Tribunal Judge Blum held that the tribunal has jurisdiction to make their own decision on whether an appellant is a victim of trafficking and to consider if a negative trafficking decision has been reached in breach of the Secretary of State’s policy guidance. It also found that tribunals may be better equipped than a Competent Authority to make pertinent findings related to trafficking. This case lays down important guidance in trafficking cases.
Overturning the decisions of the First-tier Tribunal, the Upper Tribunal held that MS was a victim of trafficking, a status which is current and enduring. It went on to make important observations and findings on the following issues:
(a) Violation of human dignity and fundamental freedom of a child who was bereft of parental and family support
(b) Control and subtle, psychological compulsion
(c) Free will and mobility to change employment, and exploitation
(d) Economic necessity and exploitation
(e) Perversity of Competent Authority decisions
(f) Article 4 breaches by the State
(g) The impact of a trafficking finding on a removal decision
(h) The Secretary of State's continuing obligations under Article 12-14 of the Trafficking Convention and Art 16 considerations upon removal.
The Tribunal also gave instruction that those engaging expert witnesses should ensure that the expert be provided with a copy of a section appearing at Annex A from the case of MOJ & Others, as a matter of course, at the initial stage of receiving instructions.
The Tribunal however considered the asylum claim to be defeated owing to availability of internal flight alternative.
Both parties have applied for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal: MS challenging the asylum decision and the Secretary of State challenging the jurisdiction of the Tribunal concerning the Trafficking Convention and the State's non-immigration related duties under Article 4 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
Read our note on the judgment.
Read the full judgment.
Guidance case begins of Pakistani child trafficked for forced labour 16 December 2015
Our client Ms Cherrylyn Reyes, who has been accepted as a victim of trafficking by the Home Office, has been granted permission to appeal the judgment of the court of appeal preventing her from bringing a claim against her employers, a Saudi diplomat and his wife.
Read more about the case here: Court of appeal issues declaration of incompatibility
Barring a victim of trafficking from obtaining compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, due to non-compliance with the police amounts to a breach of the UK's obligations to victims of trafficking.Read More
ATLEU has been granted permission to challenge the Lord Chancellor’s failure to grant funding to victims of trafficking seeking redress through compensation claims against their traffickers.Read More
In a ground-breaking judgment, the Employment Tribunal upheld numerous claims, including those for unpaid wages and religious and race discrimination, brought by an Indian woman of low caste kept in domestic servitude by her employers for four and a half years.Read More
The Secretary of State has the power to amend the Equality Act 2010 to make 'caste' a protected characteristic. However, an Employment Tribunal has today held that 'caste' is already part of the protected characteristics of race.Read More
EK was trafficked to the UK from Tanzania in 2006 for domestic servitude. Contrary to UKBA guidance she was not given information on her rights upon entry to UK. The Upper Tribunal found that this was a breach of Article 4 and had contributed directly to her vulnerability to trafficking.Read More