Jurisdiction – working outside Great Britain
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Working outside the jurisdiction
Jurisdiction – working outside Great Britain
The Respondent was a British company, which employed the Claimant as Managing Director of its business in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (‘KSA’). The Claimant had lived in the Middle East for some years and had no home in the UK. He continued to live in Lebanon, commuting to work in the KSA for two to four days each week. Given that the KSA operation had only recently been established, the Claimant reported to a manager based in the UK and other staff and support services were also located in the UK. Further, when offered the position, the Claimant was given one of the Respondent’s standard UK contracts which recorded that it was to be governed by English law and included references to British statutory employment protections. The ET found, however, that the budget for the KSA operation was an independent item within the UK budget and was administered separately. Balancing the various factors, it concluded that the Claimant was an expatriate employee who had stronger connections to KSA and the Middle East than to Great Britain and British employment law, and thus that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the Claimant’s claims. The Claimant appealed.
Held: allowing the appeal in part
The ET had been entitled to find that the KSA operation for which the Claimant was employed was subject to an independent budget, administered separately and to see this as a case where it was appropriate to balance the competing considerations in assessing whether the stronger connection was really with Great Britain and British employment law. In so doing, however, the ET had disregarded the fact that the parties had agreed the Claimant’s contract should be governed by English law. It was not suggested that the contractual term in this regard did other than properly represent the parties’ intentions and it was therefore wrong of the ET to have regard to the Respondent’s subjective explanation for this and to dismiss it as a relevant factor. Although the ultimate assessment as to the weight to be given to this and other factors was for the ET, the apparent failure to have regard to a relevant matter rendered the conclusion unsafe and the appeal would be allowed on this basis.
Eady QC HHJ
[2017] UKEAT 0282 – 16 – 2405, [2017] WLR(D) 458
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Employment, Jurisdiction
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.590418
