Case update: Employment appeal tribunal rules on jurisdiction in employment case involving peripatetic employee

Employment Appeal Tribunal upholds decision of Employment Tribunal that it had jurisdiction to hear a claim for unfair dismissal brought by an employee because the seafarer’s “base” was her home rather than her “tours of duty” location.

In an employment case between a Guernsey-registered company and a stewardess, the UK Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) concluded that it has jurisdiction to hear a claim brought by the employee even though the vessel that was deemed as that employee's ‘place of work’ under the employment contract never entered the UK territorial waters. The EAT held that in order to confirm the “base” of a peripatetic employee, an entire factual matrix should be considered, such as: relevant employment contract (including its governing law and jurisdiction clauses); employee’s place of residence; paid travel expenses to/from place of work; location where work commences/ends; and location of employee’s bank account and relevant tax authorities. 

Importance

This case recognises that the UK courts may recognise jurisdiction over any employment claim brought by an employee who may not work in the UK or within UK territorial waters but has a “sufficiently strong” employment relationship with the UK in the wider context of that employee’s circumstances.  

Further Reading

Yacht Management Company Ltd v Gordon & Anor (JURISDICTION; territorial jurisdiction) [2024] EAT 33. NRF’s blogpost on this case can be found here and the full judgment can be found here.