Stena Drilling PTE Limited v Tristan Smith
[2024] EAT 57
Justin Lawes v Fleet Maritime Services (Bermuda) Ltd
17 May 2024
[2024] EAT 77
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A worker sued his employer for breach of contract. The judge decided to postpone the decision on whether the employment tribunal could hear the case, suggesting the worker try court first. The appeals court agreed. It explained the judge was managing the case, and the differences in how courts and employment tribunals deal with cases from different countries justified this delay.
Key Facts
- •Justin Lawes (Claimant/Appellant) appealed an Employment Judge's decision to stay a ruling on whether the Employment Tribunal had jurisdiction over his breach of contract claim against Fleet Maritime Services (Bermuda) Ltd (Respondent).
- •The claim involved breach of contract and the Employment Tribunal's territorial jurisdiction.
- •The Claimant was a ship's captain, recruited in Southampton, with some HR functions managed there.
- •The Respondent was incorporated in Bermuda, with operational headquarters in California and onboarding in Naples.
- •The contract had an English law governing clause but no exclusive jurisdiction clause.
- •The Employment Judge stayed the decision on jurisdiction, suggesting that the Claimant could pursue the matter in the courts first.
- •The appeal focused on whether the Judge should have decided the breach of contract jurisdictional claim.
Legal Principles
Employment Tribunal case management decisions are appealable only if ‘certainly wrong’.
Employment Tribunal Rules 2013, rule 1(3)
The Employment Judge's discretion in case management should be considered using the approach in *Lycatel Services Ltd v Robin Schneider* [2023] EAT 81.
*Lycatel Services Ltd v Robin Schneider* [2023] EAT 81
The Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 dictates the tribunal's jurisdiction over breach of contract claims, in relation to section 131(2) of the 1978 Act (as maintained by the 1996 Act).
Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994, Articles 3 and 4
International jurisdiction in courts involves specific rules on service (CPR 6.36 and PD 6B), differing from the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013.
Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) 6.36, Practice Direction 6B
Contractual choice of law is a relevant factor in determining international jurisdiction.
*Wittenberg v Sunset Personnel Services Ltd & Ors.* [2013] UKEATS/0019/13/JW and *Yacht Management Company Ltd v Ms Lindsay Gordon*: [2024] EAT 33 (obiter)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Employment Judge's decision was a case management decision (not a judgment) falling within the scope of his discretion under the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013 and *Lycatel*. The differences in jurisdictional procedures between the courts and the Employment Tribunal, coupled with the Claimant's reservation to pursue the main part of his claim in court, justified the stay.