Cases1400577/2023

Claimant v MouldCAM Limited

4 July 2025Before Employment Judge LevertonBristolremote video

Outcome

Other

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalnot determined

The tribunal determined at this preliminary hearing that it has jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim as the claimant's employment had sufficiently strong connections with Great Britain and British employment law. The substantive merits of the unfair dismissal claim have not yet been determined.

Unlawful Deduction from Wagesnot determined

The tribunal determined that the unlawful deductions claim falls within the territorial scope of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The substantive merits of the claim have not yet been determined.

Breach of Contractnot determined

The tribunal determined it has jurisdiction to hear contractual claims (including notice pay) under the Extension of Jurisdiction Order as the respondent is domiciled in the UK and resides or carries on business in England and Wales. The substantive merits have not yet been determined.

Holiday Paynot determined

The tribunal determined that the holiday pay claim under the Working Time Regulations 1998 falls within the territorial scope of those regulations, applying the same analysis as to the ERA claims. The substantive merits have not yet been determined.

Redundancy Paynot determined

The tribunal determined that the redundancy pay claim falls within the territorial scope of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The substantive merits have not yet been determined.

Facts

The claimant, a Danish national living in Denmark, was employed by a UK company as a sales manager from November 2018 to August 2022. He worked remotely from his home in Denmark, selling products to customers in Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark. The products were manufactured at the respondent's premises in Poole. He had frequent contact with colleagues in Poole and visited the UK three or four times during his employment. He was dismissed on performance grounds in August 2022.

Decision

The tribunal determined it has jurisdiction to hear all the claimant's claims. The employment tribunal is the appropriate forum for the contractual claims. The statutory claims under the ERA and WTR fall within the territorial scope of those provisions because the claimant's employment had sufficiently strong connections with Great Britain and British employment law, despite him living and working in Denmark.

Practical note

An employee working abroad for a UK employer may fall within the territorial scope of UK employment law if sufficiently integrated into the UK business operations, even where the employee is a foreign national living and working permanently abroad.

Legal authorities cited

Duncombe v Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (No.2) [2011] ICR 1312Ministry of Defence v Wallis [2011] ICR 617Bleuse v MBT Transport Ltd [2008] ICR 488Creditsights Ltd v Dhunna [2015] ICR 105Bates van Winkelhof v Clyde and Co LLP [2013] ICR 883Ravat v Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd [2012] ICR 389Lawson v Serco Ltd [2006] ICR 250

Statutes

Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 s.15CEmployment Tribunals Act 1996 s.3Employment Rights Act 1996 s.86Employment Rights Act 1996 s.196Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994Working Time Regulations 1998

Case details

Case number
1400577/2023
Decision date
4 July 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
manufacturing
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Sales Manager
Salary band
£30,000–£40,000
Service
4 years

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister