And v Mrs K Bradley and 2 others — 2023

This was an open preliminary hearing limited to two issues: the correct respondent and whether the tribunal had territorial jurisdiction. The tribunal expressly said it was not making findings on the substantive issues relating to the claimant's purported protected disclosures, except insofar as they were relevant to jurisdiction. It held that the claimant had not shown that her employment had a sufficiently close connection with Great Britain to displace the territorial pull of Qatar.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant was a British national and that some aspects of her work and the wider BAE Systems group had UK connections, but it found the weight of the evidence pointed the other way. It relied on the recruitment process, the offer and employment contracts, the Ministry contract, the Qatari law and Qatari courts clauses, the claimant's residence in Qatar, payment in Qatari riyals, and the fact that her tax position was in Qatar. It found that occasional work done in the UK during holiday visits did not create territorial jurisdiction.

Applying Lawson v Serco, Ravat, Duncombe and Jeffrey, the tribunal concluded that this was not a case of a posted worker or a commuting expatriate and that the claimant was exclusively based in and resident in Qatar. It also rejected the argument that UK corporate policies, UK-based investigation activity, or the British ownership structure of the wider group were enough to establish jurisdiction. On that basis it held that the substance of the cause of action arose, or primarily arose, in Qatar.

On employer identity, the tribunal found that the claimant was not employed by the First Respondent. It held that the claimant's contract of employment reflected the true position and did not justify implying a contract with the First Respondent, piercing the corporate veil, or treating the arrangements as contracting out of statutory rights. For completeness, it recorded that the claimant was at all times an employee of the Second Respondent, or alternatively BSL/the Branch Office, and that the tribunal therefore lacked jurisdiction to hear the claims against the First Respondent. All claims were dismissed.