Case 1600049/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Mr. J. Lawes (C) v Fleet Maritime Services (Bermuda) Ltd. (R) HELD AT/BY: Wrexham by CVP — 2022

Case reference: 1600049/2022
Decision date: 4 November 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr. J. Lawes (C)

Respondent

Fleet Maritime Services (Bermuda) Ltd. (R) HELD AT/BY: Wrexham by CVP

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The hearing was a reserved preliminary hearing to decide whether the Employment Tribunal had territorial jurisdiction over the claimant's claims. The claimant was a seafarer employed by the respondent as a captain and brought claims under the Employment Rights Act 1996, the Equality Act 2010, and for breach of contract under the Extension Order.

The Tribunal considered where the claimant was based, where he usually worked, the ships on which he worked, the respondent's incorporation and management arrangements, and the links relied on by each party. It found that the claimant's work and base were not sufficiently connected with Great Britain for the Tribunal to have jurisdiction over the ERA and EqA claims.

For the breach of contract claim, the Tribunal held that jurisdiction depended on whether a court in England and Wales would accept jurisdiction under normal principles of international private law. It stayed the breach of contract claim pending an update about any High Court or County Court proceedings.

Claims and outcomes

7 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The preliminary hearing judgment held that the Tribunal did not have territorial jurisdiction to hear the Employment Rights Act 1996 claims; the unfair dismissal claim was not decided on its merits.	Other	—	—
Whistleblowing	The claimant brought automatic unfair dismissal and detriment claims under PIDA. The preliminary hearing judgment held that the Tribunal did not have territorial jurisdiction to hear the Employment Rights Act 1996 claims; these claims were not decided on their merits.	Other	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	The preliminary hearing judgment held that the Tribunal did not have territorial jurisdiction to hear the Employment Rights Act 1996 claims; the unauthorised deduction from wages claim was not decided on its merits.	Other	—	—
Race discrimination	The preliminary hearing judgment held that the Tribunal did not have territorial jurisdiction to hear the Equality Act 2010 claims; the race discrimination claim was not decided on its merits.	Other	Race	—
Disability discrimination	The preliminary hearing judgment held that the Tribunal did not have territorial jurisdiction to hear the Equality Act 2010 claims; the disability discrimination claim was not decided on its merits.	Other	Disability	—
Victimisation	The claimant brought a victimisation claim under the Equality Act 2010. The preliminary hearing judgment held that the Tribunal did not have territorial jurisdiction to hear the Equality Act 2010 claims; this claim was not decided on its merits.

Legal tests applied

4 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.

Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

How we got this data

Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.

Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.