This case was well reported in the media. It involved three Filipino women who worked for the Ambassador of the United Arab Emirates to Ireland and his wife as domestic servants. The claimants alleged they were badly treated. They worked at least 15 hours a day, seven days a week for some €170 a month, were abused in their workplace, denied contact with the outside world and had to share one bedroom with two beds. The women were eventually rescued by the Migrant Centre of Ireland.

The Ambassador and his wife did not attend the hearing, nor did they make a submission, but the EAT had to consider whether the case might fail due to rules on diplomatic immunity to prosecution.

Having considered case law, the EAT concluded that the cases of the three women could go ahead uncontested. The Tribunal was satisfied that all three appellants’ functions as a Nanny/Domestic Help in the respondents' private residence did not fall ‘within the restricted form of state immunity’ as considered in Government of Canada v Employment Appeals Tribunal (1991), nor did their position involve them “within the exercise of public powers” according to the test set out in Ahmed Mahamdia v Peoples’ Democratic Republic of Algeria Case C-154/11

The uncontested evidence of abuse of these women is shocking and media reports after the judgement indicated that the ambassador had been recalled to the UAE. Each was awarded €80k by the EAT: