Justin Lawes v Fleet Maritime Services (Bermuda) Ltd
[2024] EAT 77
Yacht Management Company Limited v Lindsay Gordon & Anor
6 March 2024
[2024] EAT 33
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A woman who worked on a superyacht, living in Scotland, sued her employer for unfair dismissal even though the yacht never came to the UK. The court decided that because she lived here, got paid here, and the contract said so, a UK court could hear her case. It wasn't enough that her work was only on the boat outside the UK; where she lived and how she was paid were also important.
Key Facts
- •Ms. Gordon worked on a superyacht, never entering UK waters.
- •Her contract was governed by English law, with exclusive jurisdiction in English courts.
- •She lived in Aberdeen, Scotland, and her salary was paid into her Aberdeen bank account.
- •Her employer, Yacht Management Company Limited, is registered in Guernsey and has no UK business.
- •The yacht's tours of duty all began and ended outside Great Britain.
- •The employer challenged the Employment Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear Ms. Gordon's claims.
Legal Principles
Territorial jurisdiction of UK employment law for peripatetic employees depends on a multi-factor test considering the employee's 'base'.
Lawson v. Serco [2006] ICR 250, Ravat v. Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Limited [2012] ICR 389, Windstar Management Services Limited v. Harris [2016] ICR 847
A peripatetic employee's 'base' is the place where they are ordinarily working, even if they spend time abroad. It does not have to be a port or an office; a home address can be a base.
Lawson v. Serco, Todd v. Midland Airways Limited [1978] ICR 959, Windstar Management Services Limited v. Harris, Diggins v Condor Marine Crewing Services Ltd [2010] IRLR 119
International jurisdiction is distinct from territorial jurisdiction and must be considered separately.
Simpson v. Interlinks Ltd [2012] ICR 1343, Bleuse v. MBT Transport [2008] ICR 488
Choice of law and forum clauses in a contract are relevant factors in determining jurisdiction.
Ravat v. Halliburton, Windstar Management Services Limited v. Harris, Green v SIG Trading Ltd [2019] ICR 929
The same jurisdictional test applies to claims under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Equality Act 2010.
Green v SIG Trading Ltd [2019] ICR 929; Smania v Standard Chartered Bank [2015] ICR 436; R. (Hottack and another v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and another [2016] ICR 975
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The Employment Tribunal correctly found that it had jurisdiction. The Tribunal appropriately applied the multi-factor test to determine Ms. Gordon's 'base' was in the UK, considering her home address, salary payments, tax returns, contract terms, and travel expenses. The term 'tours of duty' was correctly interpreted as narrower than 'duties under the contract'.