EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Working outside the jurisdiction
The Claimants were wives of service personnel working at NATO headquarters in Belgium and in the Netherlands – Because of that status they were eligible for, and they obtained, employment in schools attached to those headquarters – They were dismissed when their husbands’ service came to an end – They claimed for unfair dismissal and sex discrimination – Held by Tribunal that it had jurisdiction to entertain both claims notwithstanding that Claimants worked abroad.
Held, upholding the Tribunal:
(1) that there was a sufficient special link between the Claimants’ employments and Great Britain for them to come within the scope of the unfair dismissal legislation – Serco Ltd v Lawson [2006] ICR 250 applied;
(2) that it was necessary to qualify the territorial limitation imposed by s. 6 (1) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 in view of the fact that the Claimant had directly-effective rights under the Equal Treatment Directive – Bleuse v MTB Transport Ltd [2008] IRLR 264 and Duncombe v Department of Education and Skills [2010] IRLR 331 followed.
Judges:
Underhill P
Citations:
[2010] UKEAT 0546 – 08 – 3007
Links:
Statutes:
Sex Discrimination Act 1975, Employment Rights Act 1996 94(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Ministry of Defence v Wallis and Grocott CA 8-Mar-2011
Mrs Wallis was employed by the Ministry of Defence at the international school attached to SHAPE in Belgium. Mrs Grocott was employed by the Ministry in the British section of the Armed Forces North International School in the Netherlands. Both . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421392
