Claimant v University College London — 2020

This was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge M Emery on 17-18 August 2020. The issue was whether Professor Robert Carter's employment with University College London Qatar had a stronger connection with Great Britain than with Qatar, so that he could bring his Employment Rights Act 1996 and Equality Act 2010 claims in the Employment Tribunal. The tribunal applied the established territorial jurisdiction authorities, including Ravat v Halliburton and later appellate cases, and approached the question as one of fact and degree.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant was a true expatriate worker who lived and worked mainly in Qatar, was paid in Qatari riyals, and received significant expatriate benefits. It nevertheless found a strong set of connections to Great Britain: UCL-Q was created as an integral part of UCL and not a separate legal entity, the claimant was recruited by UCL to an open-ended academic post, and UCL's Statute 18 applied to his employment. The tribunal found that under the second contract he remained an academic member of staff and that there was no evidence of any proper process removing that status or disapplying Statute 18.

The tribunal also relied on the close integration between UCL-Q and UCL in London, including quality assurance, teaching and research oversight, and the claimant's contribution to the Institute of Archaeology's Research Excellence Framework return. It accepted that the respondent itself had justified the inclusion of UCL-Q academics in the REF on the basis of their direct connection with the IoA, and it treated that as a material factor pulling the employment towards Great Britain. Although the second contract used wording pointing to Qatari law and jurisdiction, the tribunal gave that less weight in light of the contractual and statutory background.

The tribunal concluded that the claimant's employment had an especially strong connection with Great Britain, outweighing his expatriate status, and that Parliament must have intended British employment law to apply. It therefore held that the claimant had territorial jurisdiction to pursue his claims in the Employment Tribunals. No monetary remedy was determined, because the judgment addressed jurisdiction only and not the merits of the underlying claims.