Cable News International Inc v Saima Bhatti

The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the employer’s appeal against findings that the claimant’s statutory employment claims were justiciable in Great Britain in respect of alleged wrongful acts occurring on or after 1 March 2017 and that the employment tribunal had international jurisdiction to determine those claims. The court accepted the tribunal’s evaluative finding that the claimant was a peripatetic employee whose work base changed over time such that London displaced Bangkok as her base from 1 March 2017. It held that territorial scope is a question of statutory construction and degree and that the tribunal was entitled to find a sufficiently strong connection with Great Britain from that date. The EAT further held that international jurisdiction was available: primary domestic enactments conferring statutory causes of action will, absent displacement by applicable private international law, support the tribunal’s jurisdiction; and, even if the Brussels Regulation were engaged, Articles 20 and 21 could support jurisdiction. The tribunal’s service of claim documents via the London bureau was held sufficient to bring the proceedings to the attention of the employer and did not deprive the tribunal of jurisdiction.

This is an appeal from a reserved judgment of Employment Judge Klimov (London Central Employment Tribunal) concerning a British journalist employed under contracts governed by Georgia law by an Atlanta-headquartered broadcaster with a London bureau. The claimant worked mainly in Asia from 2013 to early 2017, rented a flat in Bangkok (her Asia base), but returned to London for treatment and to seek a London base from 1 March 2017. The employer informed her in August 2017 that her contract would not be renewed and escorted her from the London bureau; she was paid through 31 December 2017. She brought tribunal claims for discrimination, victimisation, unfair dismissal, equal pay and unpaid holiday pay.

Procedural history: the tribunal judge decided the statutory causes of action were within the territorial scope of the legislation only as regards alleged wrongs from 1 March 2017 onwards and that the tribunal had international jurisdiction to determine those claims; the employer appealed. The EAT heard the appeal and rejected the challenge.

Nature of the application/relief sought: the appellant sought to overturn the tribunal’s conclusions on (i) territorial scope of the relevant statutes (whether the claimant fell within the legislative grasp), and (ii) international jurisdiction of the employment tribunal (including private international law and the Brussels Regulation issues), and (iii) the sufficiency of service.

Issues framed by the court:

• whether the claimant was a peripatetic or expatriate worker and, on an evaluative fact-based assessment, whether her employment had a sufficient connection with Great Britain from 1 March 2017;
• whether the employment tribunal had international jurisdiction to determine claims within the territorial scope of the statutes, including the role of domestic enactments, tribunal procedural rules and the Brussels Regulation (Articles 20 and 21); and
• whether delivery of claim documents to the London bureau sufficed for any necessary service or notice to the employer.

Court’s reasoning (concise): the EAT held that whether a worker is peripatetic is a factual matter relevant to the legal question of territorial scope; the tribunal was entitled to conclude the claimant had two bases (Bangkok and London) and that London became her base from 1 March 2017 when she relocated and sought to work from the London bureau. The EAT accepted the tribunal’s assessment of contractual and operational factors (attendance at the London bureau, being on distribution lists, a pass, offers to be deployed, pay arrangements, relinquishing the Bangkok flat) and saw no legal error in the conclusion that claims arising from 1 March 2017 were within the territorial reach of the statutory causes of action.

On international jurisdiction, the EAT reasoned that primary domestic statutes conferring causes of action and remedies support the tribunal’s jurisdiction in respect of matters within territorial scope unless displaced by private international law of equal effect. The judge properly examined the Brussels Regulation and concluded Articles 21 (habitual place or last habitual place of work) and 20 (deemed domicile where a branch/establishment is involved) could, if relevant, also support jurisdiction; and that the Regulation did not give a non-EU domiciled defendant a right to be sued only in its non-EU domicile. Finally, the tribunal’s procedural rules allowing documents to be treated as delivered if they came to a party’s attention meant sending the claim to the London bureau (which informed the Atlanta employer) sufficed and did not render the proceedings defective.

The appeal is dismissed. The EAT upheld the tribunal’s factual and evaluative judgment that, as from 1 March 2017, the claimant’s employment had a sufficiently strong connection with Great Britain to fall within the territorial scope of the statutes relied upon; and the tribunal had international jurisdiction to try the claims so far as they were within that territorial scope. The court rejected the employer’s challenges on characterisation, the application of private international law (including the Brussels Regulation), and on service.

Appeal from a reserved judgment of Employment Judge Klimov sitting at London Central Employment Tribunal (hearing 10–14 July 2023; reserved judgment 11 August 2023). Employment Appeal Tribunal decision: Cable News International Inc v Saima Bhatti [2025] EAT 63. The claimant had earlier brought a High Court claim which was settled in March 2020; the tribunal claims were stayed pending that settlement.