Cases3202454/2023

Claimant v Storm Global Ltd

29 April 2025Before Employment Judge K HindmarchEast Londonremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalstruck out

Tribunal found it lacked territorial and international jurisdiction to hear the claims. The claimant was based in Andorra (non-EU, outside UK) and did not have a sufficiently strong connection to Great Britain under the Lawson test. The contract jurisdiction clause was only one factor and insufficient.

Wrongful Dismissalstruck out

Struck out on jurisdictional grounds. Additionally struck out as against the First Respondent as the claimant's pleaded case was that the Second Respondent was his employer, and the claim against the First Respondent had no reasonable prospects of success.

Whistleblowingdismissed on withdrawal

Claim number 3200263/24 was presented on 31 January 2024, outside the three-month time limit (expired 14 December 2023). The claimant went to ACAS for early conciliation on 3 January 2024, after the primary time limit had expired. It was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time as he had already filed one claim (the Storm Claim) on 14 December 2023. The tribunal dismissed the claim for being out of time.

Breach of Contractstruck out

Struck out on jurisdictional grounds applying the Lawson test, as the claims under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction Order must shadow civil court jurisdiction.

Unlawful Deduction from Wagesstruck out

Struck out on territorial and international jurisdiction grounds. The claimant had no sufficiently strong connection to Great Britain.

Holiday Paystruck out

Struck out on jurisdictional grounds. Tribunal found the Bleuse principle (which extends EU-derived rights post-Brexit) did not apply because the claimant was based in Andorra, outside the EU, and the tribunal is no longer a court in a Member State post-Brexit.

Otherstruck out

Claims under the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 struck out as against the First Respondent as having no reasonable prospects of success. The claimant pleaded the Second Respondent was his employer and could not simultaneously be an agency worker and employee in respect of the same work.

Otherstruck out

Claims under the Working Time Regulations 1998 and Civil Aviation (Working Time) Regulations 2004 struck out on jurisdictional grounds. Tribunal held the Bleuse principle did not apply as the claimant resided in Andorra (non-EU) and, post-Brexit, the principle no longer binds UK tribunals.

Facts

The claimant, a Serbian-born Canadian citizen residing in Andorra, worked as an airline captain from July 2012 to September 2023, operating aircraft for the Second Respondent via a contract with the First Respondent. He was based at various European airports (Barcelona, Palma, Corfu, Dublin, Faro) and operated as a mobile pilot from October 2022. He occasionally flew to/from UK airports but was never UK-based. After dismissal in September 2023, he brought claims for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, holiday pay, and whistleblowing, filing three separate ET1s naming different respondents and citing different ACAS early conciliation certificates.

Decision

The tribunal struck out all claims on the basis it lacked territorial and international jurisdiction. The claimant lived and worked in Andorra and did not have an especially strong connection to Great Britain under the Lawson test. The contractual jurisdiction clause was insufficient. Two claims (whistleblowing and a second Ryanair claim) were also dismissed as out of time, with the tribunal finding it was reasonably practicable to present them within the three-month limit. Unfair and wrongful dismissal claims against the First Respondent were struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success, as the claimant's pleaded case was that the Second Respondent was his employer.

Practical note

A contractual jurisdiction clause specifying English courts is not decisive in establishing territorial jurisdiction; a claimant must show a particularly strong connection to Great Britain, especially where based outside the UK and EU, and post-Brexit the Bleuse principle may not extend EU-derived employment rights to non-EU resident claimants.

Legal authorities cited

Jeffery v British Council [2019] IRLR 125Compass Group UK & Ireland Ltd v Morgan [2017] ICR 73Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council [1984] ICR 372Stena Drilling PTE Ltd v Smith [2024] IRLR 565Bleuse v MBT Transport Ltd [2008] IRLR 264Yacht Management v Gordon [2024] IRLR 561R(Fleet Maritime Services (Bermuda) Ltd) v Pensions Regulator [2016] IRLR 199Diggins v Condor Marine Crewing Services Ltd [2010] IRLR 119Lawson v Serco Ltd [2006] UKHL 3Duncombe v Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families [2011] ICR 495Ravat v Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd [2012] ICR 389

Statutes

Working Time Regulations 1998Employment Tribunals (Extension of Jurisdiction Order) 1994ERA 1996 s.111Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 s.15CAgency Workers Regulations 2010Civil Aviation (Working Time) Regulations 2004

Case details

Case number
3202454/2023
Decision date
29 April 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
2
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
professional services
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Airline Captain
Service
11 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No