The British Council v Ana-Maria Beldica
[2024] EAT 92
James Thorp & Anor v Shuhdi Ali
22 February 2023
[2023] EAT 21
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A worker sued his employers in the UK for unpaid wages, even though much of his work was done in Qatar. A judge said the lower court correctly found there was a contract, but didn't properly decide if UK law applied because of the Qatar work. The case will go back to court to decide that part.
Key Facts
- •Claimant worked for the second respondent's Qatari companies, living in the UK but frequently travelling to Qatar.
- •During COVID restrictions, claimant stayed in Qatar for eight months and was not paid, despite hotel and travel expenses being covered.
- •Claimant alleged unauthorised deductions and lack of employment particulars statement.
- •Employment Tribunal (ET) found claimant based in UK, Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA) applied, and claimant was a 'worker'.
- •Respondents appealed, arguing the ERA didn't apply due to work location in Qatar and lack of a sufficiently certain employment offer.
Legal Principles
Territorial reach of the ERA – no express provision, but case law infers principles.
Lawson v Serco Ltd [2006] ICR 250, HL; Duncombe v Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (No.2) [2011] ICR 1312, SC; Ravat v Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd [2012] ICR 389, SC; Jeffery v British Council; Green v SIG Trading Ltd [2019] ICR 929, CA
Generally, expatriate workers are subject to the employment law of their work location, not the UK.
Lawson v Serco Ltd [2006] ICR 250, HL
Exceptions exist if there's a sufficient connection between the employment and Great Britain.
Lawson v Serco Ltd [2006] ICR 250, HL; Ravat v Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd [2012] ICR 389, SC
For commuting expatriates (working partly in UK), a strong connection with UK law isn't exceptionally needed; sufficient connection is key.
Bates van Winkelhof v Clyde and Co [2013] ICR 883, CA
To be a 'worker' under the ERA, a contract must exist (oral or written).
ERA section 230
An offer is an expression of willingness to contract on specified terms, intending to become binding upon acceptance.
Chitty on Contracts (34th ed) paragraph [4-003]
Outcomes
Appeal allowed in part.
ET permissibly found an oral contract existed between the claimant and both respondents. However, the ET's reasoning on territorial reach was unclear and unsafe, failing to adequately address the sufficient connection question.
Question of territorial reach remitted to the ET for rehearing.
The ET's judgment on territorial reach was deemed unsafe due to unclear reasoning and failure to explicitly address the sufficient connection test. The case was not suitable for substitution of a finding by the EAT.
Appeal dismissed regarding the existence of the contract.
The ET’s findings, considered in the context of the respondents' case below, were sufficient to establish a binding oral contract.