Mr P Gorasia, of Counsel For the v Respondent — 2023

Ms Saima Bhatti, a broadcast journalist, brought claims against CNN/Cable News International arising out of her work under successive contributor contracts from 2013 to 2017. This judgment, heard in July 2023, was concerned with jurisdiction only. Employment Judge Klimov considered whether the claims fell within the territorial reach of the ERA, EqA and WTR, and whether the Tribunal had international jurisdiction against a US-domiciled respondent.

The Tribunal found that the claimant was a peripatetic worker with two work bases, Bangkok and London. It accepted that from April 2014 she had arrangements with Mr Maddox under which, when in London, she would make herself available to the London Bureau, and that this was reflected in practice by assignments, meetings and regular attendance at the London Bureau. For unfair dismissal, victimisation and discrimination arising from disability, the Tribunal held that by 29 August 2017 the claimant was based in Great Britain and that London was the last place from which she habitually carried out work. It also held that the reasonable-adjustments complaint, the race and sex pay complaints, equal pay and holiday pay were within territorial reach only to the extent they arose from 1 March 2017, when London became her main or sole work location. The alleged Hong Kong comment relied on in the race discrimination complaint was held to be outside territorial reach.

On international jurisdiction, the Tribunal held that the ERA, EqA and WTR provisions conferring a right to present claims to an employment tribunal also conferred the necessary jurisdiction once the claims were within territorial reach. In any event, it held that the Brussels Regulations did not oust jurisdiction: London was the last place where the claimant habitually carried out her work, the claimant was an employee for Brussels purposes in the EU-law sense, and Article 20(2) and Article 21(1)(b) were satisfied on the facts. The respondent's argument on service was rejected, and the claims were allowed to proceed to a merits hearing.