[2025] FWC 666
Citation: [2025] FWC 666
What happened
Mr Mahgoub Ahmed (the Applicant) sought an unfair dismissal remedy from the Saudi Arabian Cultural Mission/Saudi Embassy. The Respondent raised jurisdictional objections, arguing immunity from the Fair Work Commission's jurisdiction under the Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 and questioning the validity of service. This case follows similar decisions in *Saudi Arabian Cultural Mission v Saleh* and *Saudi Arabian Cultural Mission v Alramadi*, involving multiple employees dismissed in 2021 and 2022. The Applicant was a citizen of Sudan and held a provisional visa at the time his employment contract was made.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission Deputy President Dean dismissed the Applicant’s unfair dismissal application. The Commission found the Respondent is immune from its jurisdiction because the Applicant was not a permanent resident of Australia when his employment contract was made. The Deputy President adopted the reasoning from *Saleh* and *Alramadi*. While there was also a question about whether the application was validly served, this was deemed unnecessary to address given the jurisdictional immunity finding. The application was therefore dismissed.
What it means for employers
Employers who are foreign states need to be aware of the Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 and its implications for Fair Work proceedings. Specifically, section 12(6) requires employees to be permanent residents of Australia at the time of contract to waive immunity. Employers should ensure service of documents is conducted correctly, following precedent established in *Alramadi*.
What it means for employees
Employees who are not Australian permanent residents may face challenges in bringing claims against foreign state employers in the Fair Work Commission. The decisions in *Saleh* and *Alramadi* highlight the importance of residency status at the time of contract.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2025fwc666.pdfWant more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The full dataset, with structured fields for awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts, is available through the Business API. FairWork Mate AI answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. API + AI access is a paid product. Contact us for pricing or a 50% off first month.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.
Free forever. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
This summary was drafted by AI from the published decision and reviewed before publishing. It is general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, speak to the Fair Work Ombudsman (13 13 94) or a qualified lawyer. About these summaries & corrections →