Stena Drilling PTE Limited v Tristan Smith
[2024] EAT 57
TwistDX Limited & Ors v Dr N Armes & Ors
12 April 2024
[2024] EAT 45
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A former CEO and COO sued their old company (TwistDX) and its parent company (Abbott Labs, a US firm), plus some individuals. A judge refused to dismiss the case before a full trial. The appeal court mostly agreed, saying there was enough reason to continue the case against Abbott Labs but the judge hadn't explained his decision enough regarding other people, so that bit is going back to the lower court for a redo.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against Employment Judge Kurrein's refusal to strike out claims against various respondents in an employment dispute.
- •Claimants: Dr Niall Armes (CEO) and Mrs Helen Kent-Armes (COO) of TwistDX Limited, dismissed in May 2018.
- •Respondents: TwistDX Ltd (UK), Abbott Laboratories (US), US-based individuals, and UK-based individuals (Mr. Macken and Mr. Muggeridge).
- •Claims: Automatic unfair dismissal for protected disclosures and health & safety concerns, ordinary unfair dismissal, detriment for protected disclosures, sex and marital status discrimination.
- •Preliminary Hearing: Addressed territorial jurisdiction and strike-out applications.
- •Key jurisdictional issues: International jurisdiction over Abbott Laboratories (US) and US-based individuals, and the basis for claims against UK-based individuals as agents.
Legal Principles
Strike-out applications are a draconian step, only used in the clearest cases, particularly in discrimination claims.
Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013; Anyanwu & Another v South Bank University; Mechkarov v Citibank N.A.
Employment Tribunal decisions must comply with Meek principles, providing adequate reasons.
Meek v City of Birmingham District Council; Simpson v Cantor Fitzgerald Europe
Distinction between international jurisdiction (can the court hear the case?), domestic jurisdiction (which court within a country?), and territorial scope (does the legislation apply?).
Simpson v Intralinks Ltd; Bleuse v MBT Transport Ltd; Nica v Xian Jiatong Liverpool University
Recast Brussels Regulation determines international jurisdiction in employment matters. 'Employer' and 'employee' have autonomous meanings, potentially broader than under domestic law.
Recast Brussels Regulation 1215/2012; Samengo-Turner v J & H Marsh & McLennan; Petter v EMC Europe Ltd; Holterman Ferho Exploitatie BV v von Bullesheim; Bosworth v Arcadia Petroleum Limited
Rule 8 ET Rules 2013 concerns allocation of jurisdiction within Great Britain, not necessarily conferring international jurisdiction.
Jackson v Ghost; Financial Times v Bishop; Pervez v Macquarie Bank Ltd
Outcomes
Appeal allowed in part.
Employment Tribunal did not err in refusing to strike out claims against US company (Abbott Laboratories), as claimants' case on international jurisdiction was reasonably arguable. However, insufficient reasons given for rejecting the strike-out application against two UK-based individuals; this aspect remitted for reconsideration.
Appeal regarding jurisdiction over US-based individuals dismissed.
Employment Tribunal's finding that claimants' case on international jurisdiction was reasonably arguable was not an error of law.