Case 2202724/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Baker, of Counsel For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 2202724/2019
- Decision date
- 21 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nicolle Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr G Baker, of Counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 15 January and 3 February 2020, Employment Judge Nicolle decided only territorial jurisdiction. The tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to hear the claimant’s claims under s.13 ERA for unlawful deductions from wages and under the EqA for disability discrimination, harassment on account of disability, and victimisation. No substantive merits were decided at this stage.
The tribunal found that the claimant, an Indian national, had lived in the UK for about 10 years, owned a property in Harrow, and had family connections in the UK, including his children and both wives. It accepted that his UK home was his home base for the purposes of the assignment policy. Recruitment took place in London, and the offer letter and subsequent documents pointed to an employment relationship with Assala Energy in the UK, including an express choice of English law and English courts.
Although the tribunal rejected the claimant’s argument that the Gabon contract was a sham, it found that the Gabon contract was subsidiary to the UK contract of employment and was entered into to satisfy Gabonese legal and immigration requirements. It also found that the claimant’s salary was paid under the UK contract into a UK bank account, with UK tax and national insurance deductions, and that his benefits, including medical insurance, permanent health insurance and a pension allowance, were provided through the UK arrangements.
Applying the sufficient-connection approach in the territorial jurisdiction authorities, the tribunal held that the claimant’s employment had a sufficient connection with Great Britain and British employment law. It relied on the contractual structure, the claimant’s home and family ties, the involvement of London-based senior management, and the ongoing UK contractual and administrative links. It also added, in the alternative, that the EqA should be read consistently with directly effective rights under the Employment Equality Directive during the transitional period, although that was not necessary once jurisdiction had been established.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing on territorial jurisdiction only; the tribunal held it had jurisdiction to hear the pleaded disability discrimination claim under the EqA. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Preliminary hearing on territorial jurisdiction only; the tribunal held it had jurisdiction to hear the pleaded EqA harassment complaint. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Preliminary hearing on territorial jurisdiction only; the tribunal held it had jurisdiction to hear the pleaded EqA victimisation complaint. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Preliminary hearing on territorial jurisdiction only; the tribunal held it had jurisdiction to hear the s.13 ERA unlawful deductions claim. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- Lawson v Serco sufficient connection test
- Ravat v Halliburton sufficient connection test
- Duncombe v Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (No. 2)
- Bleuse principle
- Snook sham contract test
- Autoclenz real agreement approach
- YKK v Heneghan factors
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe 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.