In person, via video link, Mr Adinabay assisting in London v Respondent — 2020

This was a preliminary hearing on territorial jurisdiction and limitation in a claim brought by Mr S Rajabov against the British Embassy in Dushanbe. Employment Judge Glennie treated the complaint as including both ordinary unfair dismissal under s.98 ERA 1996 and, on the claimant's reference to whistleblowing, an assumed automatic unfair dismissal complaint under s.103A ERA 1996. The tribunal did not reach the merits of the dismissal itself. It held that the contract and the work had a stronger connection with Tajikistan than with Great Britain, so the Tribunal had no territorial jurisdiction to hear the claim.

In reaching that conclusion, the tribunal relied on the claimant's long-term residence in Tajikistan, his local recruitment, the fact that he worked at the British Embassy in Dushanbe, the governing law clause specifying Tajik law, the location of his managers for most of the period, and the Tajik tax and social protection arrangements. Occasional work-related visits to London and other countries did not change the tribunal's view, and it said the same would follow even on the claimant's alternative case that he had made as many as 30 visits to London over the course of his employment. The tribunal also accepted, on the claimant's case at its highest, that an assurance may have been given about UK whistleblowing protection, but held that this did not outweigh the overall connection with Tajikistan.

The tribunal also found that the claim was presented out of time. The effective date of termination was 30 June 2018, ACAS early conciliation started on 12 August 2018, the ACAS certificate issued on 6 September 2018, and the extended limitation period expired on 24 October 2018, but the claim was not presented until 2 March 2019. Applying the 'reasonably practicable' test in s.111 ERA 1996 and the authorities cited, including Palmer v Southend Council and Wall's Meat Company Limited v Khan, the tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. Alternatively, even if a further reasonable period were allowed, the delay until 2 March 2019 was too long. The claim therefore failed on both territorial jurisdiction and time-limit grounds.