Claimant v Rigicon Inc
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim against First Respondent survived the preliminary hearing on jurisdiction. Claims against Second and Third Respondents struck out. Case to proceed to final hearing.
Claims against Second Respondent (Mr Atay) and Third Respondent (Mr Luleci) struck out as they had no sufficient connection to Great Britain or British employment law to establish territorial jurisdiction under the Equality Act, following the principles in Bamieh v FCO.
Harassment claims against Second Respondent (Mr Atay) struck out on jurisdictional grounds. Neither Mr Atay nor Mr Luleci had a discernible connection to Great Britain, and no sufficient common connection to British employment law.
Breach of contract claims relating to notice pay and holiday pay against First Respondent survived jurisdictional challenge. Employment Tribunal has jurisdiction under the Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994 even though New York law applies. Case to proceed to final hearing.
Claims relating to holiday pay against First Respondent survived jurisdictional challenge. Claimant habitually worked in England and Employment Rights Act 1996 applies. Case to proceed to final hearing.
Facts
Mr Raphael was employed by a US medical devices company from November 2020 as Chief Commercial Officer. He worked from home in England but had a global remit. His contract contained a New York choice of law clause. He was dismissed in September 2023 and brought claims for unfair dismissal, race discrimination, and breach of contract against the company and two individual employees, Mr Atay and Mr Luleci. The respondents challenged territorial jurisdiction.
Decision
The tribunal found it had jurisdiction to hear all claims against the First Respondent (Rigicon Inc) because Mr Raphael habitually worked in England and the employment had sufficient connection to Great Britain. The tribunal struck out all claims against the Second and Third Respondents (individual employees based in the US/Turkey) as they lacked sufficient connection to British employment law. The choice of law clause did not prevent the application of non-derogable UK employment rights.
Practical note
A choice of law clause in an employment contract does not prevent UK employment tribunals from hearing claims where the employee habitually works in Great Britain, but claims against individual foreign-based co-workers may be struck out if they lack sufficient connection to British employment law.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2413638/2023
- Decision date
- 27 February 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Rigicon Inc
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- Chief Commercial Officer
- Service
- 3 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister