The court was asked whether the Employment Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear claims of age discrimination brought by the appellant’s employees, based in Hong Kong, but working as crew on flights between there and London.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘There was no error of law in the ET’s ruling that Ms Mak did ‘her work partly’ in Great Britain. That is sufficient to confer on the ET jurisdiction to hear and determine her claims (and those of her fellow claimants) for race and age discrimination. The jurisdiction exists as a result of the statutory process of deeming her employment to be at an establishment in Great Britain under s.8(1); that takes priority over the deeming process under s.8(4), which does not therefore apply to Ms Mak’s case.’
Mummery, Richards, Aikens LLJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 184
Bailii
Race Relations Act 1976 6(1), Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 10(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – British Airways Plc v Mak and Others EAT 20-Jan-2010
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS
Working outside the Jurisdiction
Hong Kong based cabin crew employed on Hong Kong to London flights. Whether working partly at an establishment in Great Britain for purposes . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.430045
