Case 2224555/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Aaron McNally v Acumen International Media Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2224555/2024
- Decision date
- 29 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Aaron McNally
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAaron McNally brought claims against Acumen International Media Limited. The tribunal found that the respondent was the claimant’s employer at the relevant time and that the claim had been presented within the applicable time limits.
The decisive issue was territorial jurisdiction. The tribunal held that the claimant worked wholly abroad and had not established sufficiently strong connection to Great Britain or British employment law to attract protection under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
On that basis, the tribunal dismissed the claim in its entirety because it did not have jurisdiction to hear it. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed in entirety for lack of jurisdiction; the tribunal found the claimant worked wholly abroad and had not established a sufficiently strong connection to Great Britain or British employment law. The tribunal did not reach the merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed in entirety for lack of jurisdiction; the tribunal found the claimant worked wholly abroad and had not established a sufficiently strong connection to Great Britain or British employment law. The tribunal did not reach the merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.