Earlier this month, the London Central Employment Tribunal dismissed the Claimant’s claims in Alateeqi v Kuwait Investment Authority.
The substantive claim centred on an employment dispute between the Kuwait Investment Authority (“KIA”), a sovereign wealth fund, and former CEO of the Kuwait Investment Office (“KIO”) in London. The Claimant argued he was dismissed unfairly after making protected disclosures relating to the KIA’s alleged non-compliance with legal obligations.
The preliminary hearing dealt with whether the KIA was entitled to claim state immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978.
First, the Tribunal concluded that the KIA was a separate entity within s 14(1) of the State Immunity Act 1978. It noted that the KIA had strong links with the State of Kuwait, including its use of state assets and performance of functions aimed at the benefit of Kuwaiti citizens. However, the Tribunal held that the KIA was an “independent public authority with juridical status” [75], noting the membership and powers of its Board of Directors, its “operational independence” [86], its budget allocation, and its essentially private commercial functions.
Second, the Tribunal determined that the KIA was entitled to state immunity under s14(2) of the State Immunity Act 1978. The Tribunal concluded that the Claimant’s roles as a diplomatic agent and as CEO of the KIO were “functionally indistinguishable” [119]. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the proceedings related to something done by the KIA in the exercise of sovereign authority, and that the circumstances of the case were such that a State would have been so immune.
For these reasons, the Claimant’s claims were dismissed.
Claire Darwin KC, instructed by Jonathan Tuck and John Bracken of Baker McKenzie, represented the KIA.
Link to judgment