Claimant v Sir Elly Kadoorie & Sons Ltd

The tribunal struck out all claims on the basis that there was no territorial jurisdiction. Ms Bradley worked in Hong Kong for a Hong Kong company under a contract governed by Hong Kong law, paid in Hong Kong dollars. Despite occasional work visits to the UK and her status as a UK solicitor, the tribunal found no overwhelmingly closer connection with the UK to overcome the territorial pull of Hong Kong.

The tribunal rejected the argument that whistleblowing claims should have a wider territorial scope. The same jurisdictional test applies and Ms Bradley's reporting obligations to the SRA, while a factor connecting her to the UK, were insufficient to establish jurisdiction when she was based in Hong Kong working for a Hong Kong company under Hong Kong law.

These detriment claims, related to the whistleblowing allegations, were struck out on the same jurisdictional grounds. The tribunal found no reasonable prospect that Ms Bradley could establish the necessary territorial connection with the UK.

The victimisation claims were struck out on jurisdictional grounds. The tribunal held that the same territorial principles apply to Equality Act claims and Ms Bradley's connection with Hong Kong far outweighed her connection to the UK.

All discrimination claims were struck out on the basis of no territorial jurisdiction. The tribunal emphasised that there is no decided case where someone employed abroad for a foreign company on local terms has been held within UK tribunal jurisdiction.