In considering a challenge to the jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunal to determine claims under the Employment Rights Act, 2010 (“ERA”) and the Equality Act, 2009 (“EqA”), the Employment Judge failed to recognise the important distinction between international jurisdiction on the one hand and territorial jurisdiction on the other. Specifically, he erred in law in concluding that, in any claim involving an individual contract of employment, alternative routes to establishing international jurisdiction could be found beyond those in sections 15C and 15D of the amended Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act, 1982.

The Employment Judge also erred in concluding, on the facts found by him, that territorial jurisdiction could be established by sections 199(7) of the ERA and regulation 3 of The Equality Act 2010 (Work on Ships and Hovercraft) Regulations, 2011. He had not erred, however, in concluding that territorial jurisdiction in respect of the claim under the ERA arose by applying the principles described in Lawson v. Serco Limited [2006] ICR 250 and Ravat v. Halliburton Manufacturing Services Ltd [2012] ICR 389. The Judgment of the Tribunal was set aside and the case was remitted to the same Employment Judge to consider anew the issues of international jurisdiction and, if necessary, territorial jurisdiction in relation to the EqA claim.

[Summary reproduced from the judgment]