Limited extra territorial jurisdiction
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Working outside the jurisdiction
Territorial jurisdiction
The Employment Tribunal had found that the Claimant was employed by the First Respondent (a joint venture involving a Chinese University, based in China) and had worked in China, paid in Chinese currency and subject to a contract that was stated to be governed by Chinese law. In considering his claims under the Equality Act 2010, the ET held that it lacked jurisdiction to determine his complaints. The Claimant appealed, in particular contending the ET had erred in failing to find that it had jurisdiction to determine his claims under EU law (the European Parliament and Council Regulation 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast) (‘the Regulation’)) and the Equality Act 2010 (‘the EqA’).
Held: dismissing the appeal
The Regulation did not confer jurisdiction on the ET in these circumstances; it was concerned with the question which Courts should hear a claim; as such, it did not affect the content of the substantive law applicable to the claim itself (Bleuse v MBT Transport Ltd and Anor [2008] ICR 488 EAT applied). The approach to be adopted in determining whether the Claimant had an enforceable right under British law was laid down in the case-law of the higher appellate Courts, binding on the EAT (see Bates van Winkelhof v Clyde and Co LLP [2012] IRLR 992 CA and R (on the application of Hottak) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2016] ICR 975 CA). Given the ET’s findings of fact, it had correctly concluded that it the Claimant had no right to bring a claim under the EqA.
Eady QC HHJ
[2017] UKEAT 0041 – 17 – 2308
Bailii
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.593140