Cable News International Inc v Saima Bhatti

Whether statutory employment rights extend to work with foreign elements depends on the employment relationship’s connection with Great Britain and British employment law. The assessment is one of law and degree, based on the facts at the time of the alleged wrong. A peripatetic employee may have a work base, and that base may change during employment.

Domestic legislation may confer international jurisdiction where it applies territorially, unless displaced by an applicable private-international-law rule. Under the Brussels Regulation, provisions protecting employees do not give a non-EU employer an exclusive right to be sued in its non-EU domicile. Tribunal procedure rules allocate the forum within Great Britain; they do not themselves confer international jurisdiction. Actual receipt of claim documents may cure any irregularity in delivery.

The claimant, a British journalist of Pakistani heritage, was employed by the appellant, a US media organisation, under contracts governed by Georgia law. She worked mainly in Asia and used a Bangkok flat as her base until February 2017. She returned to London in March 2017 for treatment and sought to work from the London bureau. She was deployed there for one day, then told in London that her contract would not be renewed.

She brought discrimination, victimisation, unfair dismissal, equal pay and holiday-pay claims. Employment Judge Klimov held that the claims were within the territorial reach of the relevant legislation only for alleged wrongs from 1 March 2017 onwards, and that the tribunal had international jurisdiction. The employer appealed on territorial scope, international jurisdiction, the Brussels Regulation and service.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Employment Judge was entitled to hold that the statutory claims were justiciable in respect of alleged conduct from 1 March 2017 onwards.

2. The question whether a claimant is peripatetic is factual and is relevant, but is not itself a question of law. A peripatetic employee ordinarily has a base. The claimant could properly be found to have been peripatetic, with Bangkok as her base until February 2017. The tribunal was also entitled to find that her base changed to London from 1 March 2017, when she left Bangkok, returned to London and pursued a work-based relocation to the London bureau. The sufficient-connection assessment was evaluative and disclosed no error of principle.

3. The choice of Georgia law was relevant but not determinative. Its weight was for the tribunal, particularly as neither party contended that Atlanta was more closely connected with the employment than Bangkok or London.

4. The statutory provisions giving an employee a right to present a complaint can confer international jurisdiction where the claim falls within their territorial scope. That jurisdiction is, however, subject to any applicable private-international-law rule of equal force. The Brussels Regulation did not displace jurisdiction here because the employer was not domiciled in an EU member state.

5. Articles 20 and 21 of the Brussels Regulation protect employees. They do not confer on a non-EU employer an exclusive right to be sued in its non-EU domicile. In any event, the tribunal was entitled to find that London was the claimant’s last habitual place of work and that the dispute arose from the operations of the London bureau.

6. Rule 8 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 allocated proceedings between England and Wales and Scotland; it did not itself confer international jurisdiction. Any error by the Employment Judge on that point was immaterial.

7. The tribunal rules did not require permission to serve a foreign respondent out of the jurisdiction. The employer received the claim documents through the London bureau and responded to them. There was no procedural irregularity.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: appeal dismissed; the Employment Tribunal’s determination that the claims were justiciable from 1 March 2017 onwards was upheld.
• London Central Employment Tribunal: Employment Judge Klimov, by reserved judgment dated 11 August 2023, held that the statutory claims fell within territorial scope only for alleged wrongs from 1 March 2017 onwards and that the tribunal had international jurisdiction.