Yacht Management Company Ltd v Ms Lindsay Gordon

The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the employer's appeal against an Employment Tribunal's finding of territorial jurisdiction. The tribunal correctly applied the multi-factor approach derived from Lawson v Serco and subsequent authorities (including Ravat and Windstar) to determine where a peripatetic employee was "based". The EAT held that the agreed phrase "tours of duty" did not necessarily equate to the employee's entire contractual "duties" and that, on the agreed facts and contract terms (salary accruing day-to-day, travel paid by the employer, holiday and hours provisions, and choice of law/forum), it was open to the tribunal to find the employee's base was her home in Aberdeen. The court rejected the employer's submission that Windstar was wrongly applied and found Fleet Maritime Services to be consistent once "tours of duty" and "duties" are properly distinguished.

Background and parties:

• The claimant was employed as Second Stewardess by a Guernsey-registered yacht management company from March 2019 until redundancy in October 2021.
• Following dismissal she brought claims under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Equality Act 2010. The employer denied the United Kingdom territorial reach of those statutes to her employment.

Procedural posture:

• A preliminary hearing before the Employment Tribunal (Aberdeen) determined jurisdiction on the basis of a statement of agreed facts and the contract of employment; no witness evidence was led. The Employment Judge found jurisdiction and the employer appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

Nature of the application / relief sought:

• The claimant sought to bring her unfair dismissal and related statutory claims in the United Kingdom; the issue was whether the ERA and EqA applied territorially to her employment.

Issues framed by the court:

1. whether the agreed facts that the claimant's "tours of duty" commenced and ended outside Great Britain precluded a finding that her contractual duties began and ended in the United Kingdom;
2. whether, on the agreed facts and law, the claimant's "base" could lawfully be her home in Aberdeen for the purposes of territorial jurisdiction; and
3. whether the Employment Judge erred in treating Windstar as binding or in failing to apply Fleet Maritime Services in a way adverse to the claimant.

Reasoning and outcome:

• The EAT distinguished the term "tours of duty" from the broader concept of "duties under the contract" on the facts, noting contract terms that made travel time working time, employer-paid travel, day-to-day salary accrual, tax and pay arrangements and choice of law/forum. Those factors supported treating the claimant as "based" in the United Kingdom.
• The tribunal had properly applied the multi-factor Lawson approach and relevant authorities (Ravat, Diggins, Windstar). Fleet Maritime Services was not inconsistent once the different usages of "tour of duty" were recognised.
• The employer's appeal was refused; the Employment Judge's conclusion that territorial jurisdiction existed for the claimant's statutory claims was upheld.

Appeal dismissed. The Employment Judge correctly construed the agreed facts (distinguishing "tours of duty" from broader contractual duties), properly applied the multi-factor Lawson approach and related authorities (including Ravat and Windstar) and was entitled to find the claimant's base was in the United Kingdom. Fleet Maritime Services was not inconsistent with that conclusion when "tours of duty" and "duties" are distinguished.

Appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal from an Employment Tribunal (Aberdeen) reserved judgment dated 11 November 2022 on the question of territorial jurisdiction (no neutral citation for the ET decision provided). Decision of the EAT: [2024] EAT 33 (appeal refused).