Claimant v Mr I Williams
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal determined it had territorial jurisdiction and English law applies. The strike-out and deposit order applications were dismissed. The claim will proceed to a full merits hearing to determine disputed facts regarding the claimant's working conditions, pay, and the circumstances of her leaving employment.
The tribunal dismissed the respondents' strike-out application, finding there is a crucial core of disputed facts concerning the circumstances in which and reasons why the claimant left the respondents' home in the early hours of 21 March 2023 which must be determined at a full hearing.
The tribunal found there are disputed facts as regards the claimant's pay which need to be determined at a full merits hearing. The claimant alleges she worked 127 days at 19 hours per day and was paid only £300 in total.
The tribunal determined it has jurisdiction to hear the breach of contract claim under the Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994. The claim turns on disputed facts regarding the claimant's working conditions and the circumstances of termination, to be determined at full hearing.
The claim for holiday pay under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 was not struck out and will proceed to a full hearing to determine the factual disputes.
The claims for breach of the Working Time Regulations (regulations 10, 11 & 12) were not struck out and will be determined at a full merits hearing following evaluation of all the evidence.
The tribunal rejected the strike-out application, finding that the factual allegations forming the basis of the harassment related to sex and/or sexual harassment complaints are plainly capable of amounting to either or both, and whether the allegations are true and whether they amounted to harassment are questions which need to be determined by hearing evidence at a final hearing.
Claims for failure to provide a written statement of terms and conditions of employment and itemised payslips under sections 1 & 8 ERA will proceed to a full hearing to determine the disputed facts.
Facts
The claimant, a Nigerian citizen, was engaged as a domestic worker by the respondents from 14 November 2022 to 20 March 2023. She alleges she worked 127 days for 19 hours per day and was paid only £300, was subjected to poor treatment and abuse, and was sexually harassed by Mr Williams. She escaped from the house on 21 March 2023 after being told she would be sent back to Nigeria. The respondents applied to strike out her claims or for a deposit order, arguing jurisdictional issues and that the claimant's visa was obtained fraudulently.
Decision
The tribunal determined it has territorial jurisdiction to hear the claim as the claimant performed her work in England, and English law applies under the Rome 1 Regulation. The tribunal dismissed the strike-out and deposit order applications, finding there is a crucial core of disputed facts regarding the claimant's working conditions, pay, and the circumstances of her departure which must be determined at a full merits hearing. The question of whether the claimant's contract is unenforceable due to illegality was deferred to the final hearing.
Practical note
Where a domestic worker performs all their work in Great Britain, the Employment Tribunal has territorial jurisdiction regardless of visa status or potential fraud in the visa application, and strike-out applications will be dismissed where there are core disputed facts that can only be properly resolved at a full merits hearing.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3310739/2023
- Decision date
- 15 July 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Mr I Williams
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- domestic worker
- Service
- 4 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister