At the Tribunal | |
Before
THE HONOURABLE LORD SUMMERS
(SITTING ALONE)
APPELLANT | |
RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
FULL HEARING
For the Appellant | Mr Andrew Knight Burness Paull LLP 5th & 6th Floor Union Plaza 1 Union Wynd Aberdeen AB10 1DQ |
For the Respondent | Mr Barry Nichol Anderson Strathern LLP 1 Rutland Court Edinburgh EH3 8EY |
SUMMARY
This appeal concerns a challenge to the jurisdiction of the UK employment tribunals to hear a claim brought by a former employee following his dismissal. The EAT following earlier authorities considered whether the claimant had a sufficiently strong connection with the UK to justify hearing the case where the claim arose. The claim arose from conduct on a vessel moored in the territorial waters of Equatorial Guinea. In particular the EAT considered the effect of a clause in the claimant's contract of employment which prorogated the jurisdiction of the courts and tribunals in Scotland. The EAT held that following the reasoning of Lady Hale in Duncombe v Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families the existence of such a clause was a relevant factor provided there were other connections that supported the prorogation clause and that independently connected the claim with the jurisdiction of the UK employment tribunals. The EAT also rejected an argument that the jurisdiction of Equatorial Guinea was supported by the wording of another clause in the contract.
THE HONOURABLE LORD SUMMERS
Introduction
Legal Background
The Strength of Connection Issue
"It seemed to me that for the respondent to specifically include this provision which was only afforded to employees who were UK nationals, to recruit the claimant on that basis and then to maintain that the claimant could not avail himself of recourse to a "Scots tribunal", was inconsistent if not "disingenuous", as the claimant's solicitor maintained. That contractual provision connected the claimant to Great Britain (paragraph 36)."
As the claimant held a UK passport, the template contract which was used for him was that which contains a UK jurisdiction clause.
"…. where the employment has such an overwhelmingly closer connection with Britain and with British employment law than with any other system of law that it is right to conclude that Parliament must have intended that the employees should enjoy protection from unfair dismissal. This depends upon a combination of factors. First, as a sine qua non, their employer was based in Britain; and not just based here but the Government of the United Kingdom. This is the closest connection with Great Britain that any employer can have, for it cannot be based anywhere else. Second, they were employed under contracts governed by English law; the terms and conditions were either entirely those of English law or a combination of those of English law and the international institutions for which they worked. Although this factor is not mentioned in Lawson v Serco Ltd., it must be relevant to the expectation of each party as to the protection which the employees would enjoy (paragraph 16)."
The Contractual Wording Issue
WGEG Limited will comply with all statutory obligations and employment laws of host country.