Stena Drilling PTE Limited v Tristan Smith
[2024] EAT 57
Erhard-Jensen Ontological/Phenomenological Initiative Limited v Daniel Rogerson
20 August 2024
[2024] EAT 135
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A company sued a worker in Singapore. The worker sued the company back in the UK for unfair treatment. The UK court said the company couldn't be sued in the UK because of legal rules protecting court proceedings. Even though the original lawsuit was in Singapore, the UK court's rules still applied.
Key Facts
- •Erhard-Jensen Ontological/Phenomenological Initiative Ltd (Appellant) commenced arbitration proceedings in Singapore against Mr Daniel Rogerson (Respondent) for alleged breach of a confidentiality agreement.
- •Respondent filed an Employment Tribunal (ET) claim for post-employment detriment under section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996, alleging the arbitration was a detriment due to protected disclosures.
- •The ET held that judicial proceedings immunity (JPI) did not apply to the arbitration proceedings.
- •The Appellant appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).
Legal Principles
Judicial Proceedings Immunity (JPI): protects participants in judicial proceedings from subsequent actions based on what was said or done in those proceedings.
Lincoln v Daniels [1962] 1 QB 237, Singh v Reading Borough Council [2013] EWCA Civ 909, Daniels v Chief Constable of South Wales [2015] EWCA Civ 680, Darker v Chief Constable of West Midlands [2001] 1 AC 435, Heath v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2005] ICR 329, Lake v British Transport Police [2007] ICR 1293, P v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2016] EWCA Civ 2, Roy v Prior [1971] AC 471, Trapp v Mackie [1979] 1 WLR 377, Hasselblad (GB) Ltd v Orbison [1985] QB 475
Scope of JPI: The core immunity relates to the giving of evidence and statements of case. Extension of immunity only occurs where necessary to prevent the core immunity from being outflanked.
Singh v Reading Borough Council [2013] EWCA Civ 909, Daniels v Chief Constable of South Wales [2015] EWCA Civ 680
Territorial Reach of JPI: JPI can extend to quasi-judicial proceedings in foreign jurisdictions, particularly arbitrations, based on principles of comity and international arbitration.
Hasselblad (GB) Ltd v Orbison [1985] QB 475
Article 6(1) ECHR: Right to a fair hearing. JPI is considered compatible with this right.
Heath v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2005] ICR 329
Section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996: Protects workers from detriment for making protected disclosures.
Employment Rights Act 1996
Outcomes
The EAT allowed the appeal.
The ET erred in its approach to JPI, failing to focus on the specific nature of the Respondent's claim (that the arbitration was groundless and malicious, based on false allegations in the initiating documents). The EAT held that the claim fell within the established parameters of JPI, even considering the foreign jurisdiction of the arbitration. The principles of comity and the strong public interest in supporting international arbitration outweighed any concerns about limiting access to remedies for whistleblowers.