Mr D Stilitz KC, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2023

This was a public preliminary hearing on whether the Employment Tribunal had international and territorial jurisdiction in relation to claims against the Second, Third and Seventh Respondents, who were based in Sweden. The judgment records that the underlying dispute concerned claims arising out of the claimant's work with the Triton Group, but the tribunal did not determine the substantive merits in this decision.

The tribunal rejected the argument that service failed because the claim form and notice of claim were sent to the Swedish respondents by post rather than by any High Court or CPR-based procedure. It held that the Employment Tribunal Rules permitted delivery by post to the address given, that there was no special overseas service requirement in the Rules, and that the misspelling of the Stockholm street name did not amount to a failure of service where there was no suggestion the documents did not reach the addressees.

In the alternative, the tribunal held that rule 91 on irregular service would apply in any event because the claim form and notice of claim had in fact come to the attention of the Second, Third and Seventh Respondents. It noted that they instructed solicitors, filed a response in time, exchanged evidence, attended the hearing, and gave oral evidence, so there was no practical prejudice.

On the alternative jurisdiction analysis, the tribunal held that the claimant had shown a good arguable case under the post-Brexit jurisdiction framework in section 15C of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982. It found that the First Respondent was based in the UK, the claimant worked for it in London, and there was an arguable contract of employment or sufficiently employment-like relationship, supported by continuity from the Swedish role and evidence of management and control. Had it been necessary to decide the point, the tribunal would have found that the Employment Tribunal of England and Wales had international jurisdiction over the claims against the Second, Third and Seventh Respondents as employees or agents of the First Respondent.