Basfar vs. Wong (United Kingdom)

Appellant alleged that after arriving in the United Kingdom, she was confined in the house of Mr. Basfar, and was held incommunicado. She was made to work long hours with no day offs or rest breaks, was shouted at and called offensive names. She further alleged that she was not paid the wages due to her for seven (7) months, except for one lump sum payment representing only a fraction of her wages. Appellant brought a claim against Mr. Basfar for wages and breaches of employment rights. In his defense, Mr. Basfar alleged and invoked his immunity from suit based on his diplomatic status. 

The Employment Tribunal held that Mr. Basfar was liable based on the exception found under Article 31(1)(c) of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, wherein a diplomat would not enjoy immunity from the civil jurisdiction pertaining to any professional or commercial activity exercised by the diplomatic agent in the receiving State outside of his official functions. 

In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ruled that Mr. Basfar was not immune from suit. It ruled that Mr. Basfar's treatment of Appellant showed a form of modern slavery, forced labor, servitude or trafficking, within the purview of a commercial activity. Mr. Basfar's exploitation of the Appellant equated to a commercial activity which was undertaken for his personal gain or profit. The fact that Mr. Basfar and his family enjoyed the benefit of Appellant's services showed a deliberate and continuing course of conduct or systematic activity carried on over a significant period of time, which describes the exercise of a commercial activity. Thus, Mr. Basfar did not enjoy immunity from Appellant's claim.