Case 2206085/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Did not attend and was not represented For the v Poseidon Human Capital and Government of Bahrain — 2019
- Case reference
- 2206085/2018
- Decision date
- 11 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brown Appearances
- Venue
- Central London
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Did not attend and was not represented For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist, brought claims for unfair dismissal, race discrimination, disability discrimination, negligence, breach of duty of care and defamation arising from work at Bahrain Defence Force Hospital in Bahrain. The tribunal recorded that he had been recruited through the first respondent and had then worked for the second respondent in Bahrain. At the preliminary hearing he also mentioned harassment, but that had not been pleaded and no application to amend had been made.
The claimant did not attend the open preliminary hearing on 9 December 2019. The tribunal considered his emails asking for the hearing to be postponed, but decided there was no good reason to adjourn and proceeded in his absence. It struck out the common law claims of negligence, breach of duty of care and defamation because the Employment Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear them.
On the unfair dismissal and discrimination claims, the tribunal applied the territorial jurisdiction authorities in Ravat, Duncombe and Lawson. It accepted that the claimant was a British citizen and that he had been recruited through a British company, but found that the employment relationship was overwhelmingly connected with Bahrain: he worked there, lived there with his family, was employed by a Bahraini hospital, and there was no evidence of a contractual or administrative link to Great Britain. The tribunal therefore held that it had no territorial jurisdiction over the unfair dismissal, race discrimination or disability discrimination claims, and struck them out. The judgment records that the claimant had previously been warned that the unfair dismissal claim also faced difficulty because he did not have two years' service under s108 Employment Rights Act 1996.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal had previously warned that this claim might be struck out under s108 Employment Rights Act 1996 because the claimant did not have two years' service; the final strike-out was on territorial jurisdiction grounds. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal treated this as a dismissal-related complaint and struck it out for lack of territorial jurisdiction. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal understood this as a dismissal-related complaint based on the claimant's health condition or perceived disability and struck it out for lack of territorial jurisdiction. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Other | Pleaded against the First Respondent as negligence; the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear common law negligence claims. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Pleaded against the First Respondent as breach of duty of care; the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear common law breach of duty of care claims. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Raised as a defamation claim against the First Respondent; the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear defamation claims. | Struck out | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Ravat v Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd [2012] UKSC 1
- Duncombe v Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (No 2) [2011] UKSC 36
- Lawson v Serco [2006] UKHL 3
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.