Case 2219147/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms K Brown v Portas Global Limited and 2 others — 2024
- Case reference
- 2219147/2023
- Decision date
- 27 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brewer Representation
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Ms K Brown
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe public preliminary hearing considered whether the Employment Tribunal had international and territorial jurisdiction in relation to the claims against Teckro Limited and Mr G Hughes. The Tribunal recorded that the sole issue before it was jurisdiction for the Equality Act 2010 claims against those respondents.
The Tribunal found that the claimant worked for Teckro Limited through a professional employer organisation model, with Portas Global Limited acting as the legal employer of record. It noted evidence that Teckro Limited recruited and onboarded the claimant, provided working spaces, and managed her work, including through Mr Hughes as chief executive officer.
The Tribunal concluded that there was a good arguable case and that the dispute had a sufficiently strong connection with the United Kingdom. It held that the Employment Tribunal of England and Wales has international and territorial jurisdiction to determine the claims against Teckro Limited and Mr Hughes.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment was a public preliminary hearing decision on international and territorial jurisdiction only. It found that the Employment Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the Equality Act 2010 claims against the second and third respondents, but did not determine the merits of this claim. | Other | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment was a public preliminary hearing decision on international and territorial jurisdiction only. It found that the Employment Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the Equality Act 2010 claims against the second and third respondents, but did not determine the merits of this claim. | Other | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- close connection test
- Lawson v Serco Ltd
- Duncombe v Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (No.2)
- Ravat v Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd
- Bleuse v MBT Transport Ltd
- s.15C Civil Jurisdictions and Judgments Act 1982
- Simpson v Intralinks
- good arguable case
- s.41 Equality Act 2010
- James v London Borough of Greenwich
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.