In person For the v Respondent — 2025

At the preliminary hearing, the claimant confirmed that her breach of contract complaint was withdrawn; the judgment records it as dismissed upon withdrawal. The remaining claims were ordinary unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and harassment related to sex under s.26 of the Equality Act 2010.

The tribunal held that neither the ERA nor the EqA had territorial reach on these facts. Applying Lawson v Serco, Duncombe, Ravat and Jeffrey v British Council, it found the claimant was a Canadian national who lived and worked exclusively in Canada, was paid in Canadian dollars into a Canadian account, and was subject to Canadian tax. Her occasional UK training visits, the respondent's UK registration, its UK server, the choice of English law clause, and the presence of one UK-based manager did not amount to the especially strong connection with Great Britain required for a truly expatriate worker.

The tribunal also said that, even if jurisdiction had existed, the claimant was self-employed and in business on her own account rather than an employee or worker. It relied on the written consultancy agreements, the right to provide a substitute, the claimant's autonomy, the ability to undertake other work, and the invoicing and tax arrangements. Because the case failed on territorial scope, the unfair dismissal and harassment claims were dismissed, and the strike-out, deposit-order, and amendment issues fell away.