Claimant v Conflict Armament Research Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim because the claimant was not working in Great Britain. She was a Canadian national living and working exclusively in Canada throughout her engagement, with only sporadic visits to the UK for training. There was no sufficiently strong connection with Great Britain to overcome the territorial pull of the place of work (Canada).
Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim on the same territorial grounds as the unfair dismissal claim. The claimant worked and lived in Canada, was paid in Canadian dollars, was subject to Canadian tax regime, and had no sufficiently strong connection with Great Britain to bring the claim within the territorial scope of the Equality Act 2010.
Withdrawn by claimant after accepting that she had received two months' written notice (exceeding the one month required under her consultancy agreement) and there was therefore no breach of contract.
Facts
The claimant, a Canadian national, was engaged by a UK-registered company from May 2019 to December 2023 under successive consultancy agreements as an investigator tracking weapons in conflict zones. She worked exclusively from Canada, was paid in Canadian dollars, and visited the UK only around five times in four and a half years for training. She was dismissed on notice in December 2023 when the respondent disbanded the unit she headed, citing loss of funding.
Decision
The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear the claimant's unfair dismissal and sex harassment claims because she was not working in Great Britain. As an expatriate worker living and working entirely in Canada, she failed to demonstrate the especially strong connection with Great Britain required to overcome the territorial pull of her place of work. The tribunal also found that even if jurisdiction existed, the claimant was self-employed, not an employee or worker.
Practical note
An expatriate worker living and working exclusively abroad for a UK company needs an especially strong connection with Great Britain to bring claims under UK employment legislation — merely working for a UK-registered employer is insufficient.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2218010/2024
- Decision date
- 28 March 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Head of Enhanced Investigations Unit
- Salary band
- £50,000–£60,000
- Service
- 5 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No