Automated Summary
Key Facts
The Claimant, Mr S Bacho, was employed by Quantel Limited, a UK-based company with global operations. His contract stipulated a normal place of work in Great Britain (Newbury, Berkshire) for 10-12 days monthly, governed by English law and the UK courts. Despite residing in Lebanon, the Claimant worked in the UK office regularly, managed UK-based teams, attended meetings, and performed vital role functions in the UK. The Employment Tribunal concluded that the Claimant was working in Great Britain at the time of his dismissal via telephone. The Respondent argued insufficient connection to the UK, citing the Claimant's residence in Lebanon and 70% of his pay taxed outside the UK, but the Tribunal found the connection to Great Britain sufficiently strong for jurisdiction.
Issues
- The key issue was whether the Employment Tribunal in Great Britain had territorial jurisdiction to hear the Claimant's unfair dismissal case, despite him residing in Lebanon. The Tribunal found that the Claimant's contract, which required him to work in the UK 10-12 days monthly, and his principal work activities in Great Britain established sufficient connection for jurisdiction.
- The second issue concerned the validity of the Claimant's protected disclosures under section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Tribunal ruled the disclosures primarily addressed internal matters and lacked sufficient public interest, ordering a £250 deposit but rejecting the strike-out application due to contested factual claims.
Holdings
- The Respondent's application to strike out the claim under rule 37 was dismissed because the facts are contested and require further examination. The judge concluded the case involves disputed factual matters that cannot be resolved at this preliminary stage.
- The claimant is ordered to pay a £250 deposit to continue his argument about protected disclosures. The court found the disclosures' legal basis to be strained and unlikely to succeed, though not entirely without merit, due to the nature of the emails and Fincham v HM Prison Service precedent.
- The Employment Tribunal has territorial jurisdiction because the claimant was working in Great Britain at the time of dismissal, as per the contract terms and his working pattern, even though he was dismissed by telephone while in Lebanon. The court determined the claimant's principal place of work was in GB despite living abroad.
Remedies
The claimant was ordered to pay a deposit of £250 as a condition of advancing allegations of protected disclosures made in emails dated 18 March 2017 and 12 April 2017. This deposit requirement was imposed due to concerns about the strained construction of the disclosures under Fincham v HM Prison Service, though the claim was not struck out.
Legal Principles
The court applied the principle that for peripatetic employees (those who work across multiple locations), the base location where assignments start and end is treated as the place of employment. This base location was determined to be in Great Britain, establishing jurisdiction under the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The decision emphasized that while contract terms are relevant, the actual conduct and operational practices of the parties are determinative in assessing jurisdiction. The court also considered the strength of the employment connection to Great Britain, including contractual governance by English law, UK-based salary processing, and the employee's physical presence in the UK for 10-12 days monthly.
Precedent Name
- Ravat v Halliburton Manufacturing and Service Limited
- Lawson v Serco Limited
- Fincham v HM Prison Service
Cited Statute
- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Employment Rights Act 1996
Judge Name
Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto
Passage Text
- The Claimant has set out in his witness evidence why he considers that there were breaches of regulations which he understood to be in line with UK anti-corruption and anti-bribery legislation and which he considered to be in the interests not only of the Respondent's shareholders but also to the smooth operation of the market. It will be a question for trial whether or not his belief that these were breaches of legal obligations were reasonable.
- I am satisfied that the Employment Tribunal has the territorial jurisdiction to deal with the Claimant's case.
- The Claimant's contract of employment provided that the address of normal place of work for the Claimant was 'Snell Advanced Media, Turnpike Road, Newbury, Berkshire RG14 2NX, United Kingdom where you will be expected to work between 10-12 days per month.'