Mr S Hemdam v Healys LLP — 2022

The claimant brought claims including unlawful deduction from wages, wrongful dismissal, holiday pay, breach of contract and unfair dismissal, but the unfair dismissal claim had already been withdrawn at a preliminary hearing on 1 September 2021. This hearing concerned the respondent’s strike-out application, and the tribunal also considered whether to make a deposit order if the claims were not struck out.

On the employer-identity issue, the tribunal accepted that the written employment contract and the cooperation agreement between Omar Shams t/a Healys Egypt and the respondent pointed strongly towards Omar Shams being the employer. However, it could not say that the claimant’s argument that the documents did not reflect the true intentions of the parties had no reasonable prospects of success, because there were also factors suggesting respondent involvement and control. The breach of contract claim was therefore not struck out, but the tribunal made a deposit order of £50 because it considered that aspect of the case had little reasonable prospect of success.

On territorial jurisdiction, the tribunal found that the contract listed a Cairo address, a place of work in Cairo, payment in Egyptian pounds, Egyptian law as the governing law, and exclusive jurisdiction in the South Cairo courts. Although there was some evidence of recruitment and management involvement from the United Kingdom, the claimant worked exclusively in Egypt and there were no strong countervailing factors to displace the territorial pull of the place of work. The tribunal therefore struck out the unlawful deduction from wages claim and the holiday pay claim under the Working Time Regulations 1998. No compensatory award or other monetary remedy was made in the judgment.