Claimant v Troubadour Properties Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim struck out on the basis that the tribunal had no territorial jurisdiction. The claimant was ordinarily resident in the USA, working from Massachusetts, and was not an employee working in Great Britain, nor a peripatetic employee based in GB, nor an expatriate employee with sufficiently strong connections to GB to meet the Lawson test. There were no reasonable prospects of success on jurisdiction.
Claim struck out on jurisdictional grounds as the tribunal found no reasonable prospect of establishing territorial jurisdiction under the Lawson principles, given the claimant worked and resided in the USA.
Claim struck out on jurisdictional grounds. The same territorial jurisdiction test applies to Equality Act 2010 claims as to Employment Rights Act claims (Hottak), and the claimant had no reasonable prospect of demonstrating sufficient connection to Great Britain.
Protected disclosure detriment claim struck out on the basis of no territorial jurisdiction. Claimant ordinarily resident and working in the USA with insufficient connection to GB employment law.
Holiday pay claim struck out on jurisdictional grounds. Tribunal had no territorial jurisdiction as claimant's place of work was in the USA.
Notice pay claim struck out on jurisdictional grounds along with all other claims.
Unpaid wages and other payments claims struck out on the basis of no territorial jurisdiction.
Facts
The claimant, a US citizen ordinarily resident and working in Massachusetts, USA, was a director of four UK-based companies (Troubadour entities) until September 2023. She brought claims for unfair dismissal, discrimination, whistleblowing, and various payment claims. The respondents contended she was a self-employed contractor working from the USA. The claimant failed to comply with tribunal directions to prepare evidence for a preliminary hearing on jurisdiction and employment status, seeking multiple postponements citing ill health, work pressures, and financial constraints. At the hearing she attempted to introduce factual evidence for the first time, which the tribunal refused to admit.
Decision
The tribunal struck out all claims on the basis of no territorial jurisdiction. Applying the Lawson principles, the judge found the claimant had no reasonable prospect of establishing jurisdiction: she was not working in Great Britain (paradigm case), nor based in GB (peripatetic), nor did she have sufficiently strong connections as an expatriate employee. The claimant's own case was that she worked from Massachusetts, USA. The tribunal refused to admit late factual evidence introduced on the day of the hearing, finding it would prejudice the respondents and was the result of the claimant's failure to comply with orders without good reason.
Practical note
Claimants working and residing abroad face a high bar to establish UK tribunal jurisdiction, even as directors of UK companies, and must proactively advance a positive case on territorial jurisdiction with proper evidence in compliance with tribunal orders.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2212618/2024
- Decision date
- 1 May 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- real estate
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Director
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No