Peder Prähl & Ors v Sebastian Lapinski

Where an employment tribunal has statutory cause-of-action jurisdiction and the requisite territorial connection with Great Britain, the applicable employment legislation itself confers jurisdiction unless displaced by an instrument or principle of private international law of equivalent force. A non-UK-domiciled respondent is not subject to a separate common-law requirement of service within the jurisdiction.

The tribunal procedural rules form a complete code for notifying respondents. Compliance with those rules is sufficient to require an overseas respondent to answer the claim. Section 15C of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 preserves, rather than reduces, the protective jurisdiction formerly afforded by the Brussels Recast Regulation. It must be construed consistently with that purpose, including for claims against individual employees or agents under the Equality Act 2010.

The claimant, formerly a member of Triton Investment Advisers LLP, brought disability discrimination complaints under the Equality Act 2010 against the LLP and six individuals. Three individual respondents were domiciled in Sweden. The tribunal sent each of them the claim documents at their Stockholm business address, and they received them.

Employment Judge Adkin rejected their challenge to the tribunal's international jurisdiction. The judge held that the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure governed notification of the claim and, alternatively, that there was a good arguable case that section 15C of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 applied.

The Swedish respondents appealed. They contended that, after Brexit, international jurisdiction required either service within the United Kingdom or satisfaction of section 15C, neither of which was established.

1. Appeal dismissed. The tribunal had jurisdiction over the Swedish respondents. There was no separate, universal requirement to identify a rule of private international law positively conferring international jurisdiction once statutory cause-of-action jurisdiction and territorial jurisdiction had been established.

2. The territorial application of the relevant statutory employment right ordinarily means that the tribunal may determine the claim. This position is subject to displacement by the Brussels Recast Regulation, when applicable, or another principle of private international law having force equal to primary legislation. The Brussels Recast Regulation did not apply to this post-Brexit claim.

3. The Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure formed a complete code for service or delivery of a claim. Rules 15 and 16 of the 2013 Rules required the tribunal to send the claim documents and notice of claim to the address supplied for the respondent. Those rules performed, in the tribunal, the function performed by CPR service in the civil courts. No permission for service outside the jurisdiction, and no further common-law service step, was required. The appellants had received the documents.

4. Rule 8 of the 2013 Rules did not itself confer substantive jurisdiction. It regulated whether a claim with the required connection with Great Britain could be presented in England and Wales or Scotland. It neither created jurisdiction where none otherwise existed nor removed jurisdiction that otherwise existed.

5. In any event, section 15C of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 preserved the protective jurisdictional regime of the Brussels Recast Regulation. By section 15E(2), its employment concepts were to be understood in accordance with relevant pre-exit European principles. The provision was not to be construed so as to prevent an LLP member from pursuing Equality Act claims against individual employees or agents where that would have been possible before 31 December 2020. The tribunal had therefore not erred in its alternative approach.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: appeal dismissed; the jurisdiction decision of the Employment Tribunal was upheld, [2025] EAT 77.
• Employment Tribunal (London Central): Employment Judge Adkin held at a preliminary hearing that the tribunal had jurisdiction over the Swedish respondents. No citation was stated in the judgment.