Y Saloo v Interserve Learning and Employment (Services) Ltd

For employment performed abroad, territorial jurisdiction depends on whether the claimant shows an exceptionally strong connection with Great Britain and British employment law which displaces the usual presumption against jurisdiction. The availability or effectiveness of a remedy in the country of employment is not a relevant consideration in that exercise.

An error in receiving expert evidence will not justify an appeal where the tribunal reached the same result on a sound alternative basis. Apparent bias is assessed by asking whether the fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias. A remote and indirect connection with a party’s lender does not meet that test.

The claimant, a chemistry teacher working in Saudi Arabia, brought an unfair-dismissal claim against the respondent following the non-renewal of his contract. The Employment Tribunal at Leeds held that he was employed by ESG Saudi Arabia LLC, rather than the respondent, and that it lacked territorial jurisdiction. It dismissed the claim and later refused reconsideration.

The claimant sought to appeal at a rule 3(10) hearing. He alleged errors concerning the reception of evidence from a Saudi lawyer, the treatment and weighing of his evidence, territorial jurisdiction, and actual or apparent bias by the Employment Judge. He also sought permission to amend his grounds to add the bias allegation.

1. Appeal dismissed. None of the proposed grounds was arguable, including the proposed amended ground of actual or apparent bias.

2. The Tribunal may arguably have received expert evidence without the required permission insofar as the witness addressed access to Saudi courts. Much of his evidence was nevertheless factual evidence of employment practices. In any event, any error was immaterial. The Tribunal had expressly concluded that its territorial-jurisdiction decision was unchanged even if the claimant had no effective Saudi remedy. That conclusion correctly reflected Dhunna, as applied in Hamam.

3. The Tribunal had considered the contractual documents, group-company communications and the claimant’s evidence in considerable detail. It was not required to repeat every point in its concluding summary. Its findings that ESG was the employer, and that the claimant was not de facto employed by the respondent, disclosed no arguable error.

4. The Tribunal correctly applied the territorial-jurisdiction authorities. This was an overseas-employment case in which the claimant had to establish an exceptionally strong connection with the United Kingdom. It was entitled to weigh the relevant connecting factors and find that the threshold was not met. Any technical misreference to Rule 8(2)(d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 was immaterial because the substantive territorial-jurisdiction question had been correctly addressed.

5. Applying Porter v Magill, the alleged connection was too tenuous to create apparent bias. The judge had ceased to be a director of PNE before learning of or being allocated the case. The alleged link ran indirectly through Royal Bank of Scotland’s involvement with PNE and its lending relationship with the claimant’s corporate group. The bank had no role in the substantive issues. There was also no arguable basis for actual bias.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: at a rule 3(10) hearing, dismissed the proposed appeal: [2022] EAT 22.
• Employment Tribunal, Leeds: dismissed the unfair-dismissal claim after finding that ESG Saudi Arabia LLC was the employer and that there was no territorial jurisdiction. The Tribunal later refused reconsideration.