TwistDX Limited & Ors v Dr N Armes & Ors
[2024] EAT 45
Stena Drilling PTE Limited v Tristan Smith
18 April 2024
[2024] EAT 57
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A worker sued his employer in a UK court, but the employer argued the UK court had no jurisdiction because the contract stated Singaporean law applied. The Appeal Court said the lower court made mistakes about which laws apply to deciding if a UK court can even hear the case, so it sent the case back for a proper look at jurisdiction.
Key Facts
- •Stena Drilling PTE Limited (Singaporean company) appeals a decision granting jurisdiction to a UK Employment Tribunal.
- •Mr. Smith (claimant) worked for Stena Group companies, including Stena Drilling, as a seafarer.
- •His contracts contained Singaporean choice of law clauses, but he was paid in Sterling and initially paid UK income tax.
- •Stena Drilling HR Limited (SDHR), a UK company, handled HR for Stena Group companies, including Mr. Smith.
- •Mr. Smith's claims were under the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA) and Equality Act 2010 (EqA).
- •The Tribunal found jurisdiction based on territorial jurisdiction under ERA and EqA, despite the Singaporean choice of law clause and the claimant's work mainly outside UK territorial waters.
Legal Principles
International and territorial jurisdiction are separate issues and must be considered separately.
Simpson v. Interlinks Ltd [2012] ICR 1343
For individual employment contracts after 31 December 2020, international jurisdiction is established only through sections 15C and 15D of the amended Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (CJJA).
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Territorial jurisdiction for ERA claims involves implied territorial limitations, with the location of work as a primary factor. Exceptions exist where the connection to Great Britain is sufficiently strong.
Lawson v. Serco Limited [2006] ICR 250; Ravat v. Halliburton Manufacturing Services Ltd [2012] ICR 389
The same general test for territorial jurisdiction under ERA usually applies to EqA claims. The Equality Act 2010 (Work on Ships and Hovercraft) Regulations 2011 extend territorial jurisdiction to certain seafarers working wholly or partly in Great Britain.
R. (Hottack and another) v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and another [2016] ICR 975; Equality Act 2010 (Work on Ships and Hovercraft) Regulations 2011
In determining the 'place of business' under CJJA s.15C(2)(c), the focus is on the business that engaged the employee, not the location of their actual work.
Voogsgeerd v. Navimer [2011] EUECJ C-384/10
Outcomes
The Employment Tribunal's judgment was set aside.
The Employment Judge erred in failing to distinguish between international and territorial jurisdiction and in misinterpreting the availability of alternative routes to establish international jurisdiction beyond sections 15C and 15D of the CJJA. Further errors were identified concerning the application of section 199(7) ERA and regulation 3 of the 2011 Regulations.
The case was remitted to the same Employment Judge.
To reconsider international jurisdiction under section 15C of the CJJA, specifically section 15C(2)(c), and if necessary, territorial jurisdiction over the EqA claim. Further evidence is needed regarding SDHR's role in recruitment.