Claimant v Stena Drilling PTE Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The Tribunal found it had no international jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim. The claimant worked wholly outside Great Britain after August 2011, was engaged under a contract governed by Singapore law with a Singapore-based employer (Stena Drilling PTE Limited), and recruitment was ultimately controlled from Singapore, not the UK.
The Tribunal found it had no international jurisdiction to hear the disability discrimination claim. Applying the same jurisdictional analysis as for unfair dismissal, the claimant's employment lacked sufficient connection to Great Britain, and SDHR in Aberdeen did not constitute a branch or agency through which the claimant was engaged.
Facts
The claimant, a British citizen working offshore on drilling vessels, was employed by Stena Drilling PTE Limited (a Singapore company) from July 2011 until his dismissal on capability grounds in October 2021. He worked internationally on UK-flagged vessels but had not worked in UK waters since August 2011, with his final assignments in the Bahamas. His contracts specified Singapore law. Recruitment was administered by Stena Drilling HR Ltd in Aberdeen, but contracts were concluded in Singapore.
Decision
The Tribunal found it had no international jurisdiction to hear either the unfair dismissal or disability discrimination claims. Although recruitment administration was handled in Aberdeen by SDHR, the Tribunal concluded that SDHR was not a branch, agency or establishment of the Singapore employer. The claimant was actually engaged by PTE in Singapore under the 2021 contract, and worked wholly outside Great Britain, so the claims were dismissed.
Practical note
For offshore workers employed by foreign companies, international jurisdiction turns on where the employee was genuinely engaged, not merely where recruitment administration took place; an HR services company in the UK acting under a services agreement does not constitute a branch or agency of the foreign employer for jurisdictional purposes.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 4111363/2021
- Decision date
- 14 March 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- energy
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Junior Driller
- Service
- 10 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister