MISS RUBY MOHAMMAD v Baker & Mckenzie LLP and 2 others — 2023

The Claimant, a UK-qualified real estate lawyer, accepted an offer from the Second Respondent for a Junior Associate role in its Dubai office. She said that the true arrangements meant she was employed by the First and/or Third Respondents, or alternatively that her claims could proceed against the Second Respondent under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 and the Employment Rights Act 1996.

The tribunal found that there was no contract of employment, and no worker relationship, between the Claimant and either the First or Third Respondent. It accepted that the Claimant may have assisted the First Respondent with client work and had dealings with staff of the Third Respondent, but held that those matters did not show that she was employed by either entity or that there was any second implied contract.

As to the Second Respondent, the tribunal found that the contract expressly provided for UAE Labor Law and a UAE jurisdiction clause. It also found that the Claimant's employment was overwhelmingly centred on the UAE: the role was for Dubai, the salary was in AED, her normal workplace would have been Dubai, and she would have needed accommodation and a work permit in the UAE. The tribunal therefore dismissed the breach of contract claims, holding that the Extension Order did not apply and that the UK was not the appropriate forum. It also noted that the Claimant had brought a claim in the UAE and had been awarded two weeks' salary there.

The tribunal dismissed the unlawful deduction from wages claim under s.13 and s.23 ERA 1996 for lack of territorial jurisdiction. It held that there was little if any connection between the circumstances of the Claimant's employment and Great Britain or British employment law, and that the case was at highest a type (b) case under Ravisy v Simmons & Simmons LLP, where the presumption is against jurisdiction.