Mr M Maggott v Sample Logistics Ltd — 2023

Mr Maggott had worked for Sample Logistics in South Africa from 2012 and came to the UK on 28 February 2020 for a short work visit. The tribunal found that he did not have the right to work in the UK and that his UK activities went beyond permitted visitor training. On that basis it held that the statutory claims for unfair dismissal, discrimination, holiday pay and unlawful deduction from wages fell outside the Tribunal's territorial jurisdiction and were dismissed. The contract claims were within jurisdiction because the respondent was registered in England and Wales, but the tribunal considered South Africa the more appropriate forum and declined to stay the case because it had already been fully argued.

If jurisdiction had existed, the tribunal found that Mrs Hamann made highly derogatory comments about Judith at Christmas 2019 and again on 26 August 2020, including references to her as 'low class', and that those comments were to a significant degree influenced by racial prejudice. It nevertheless held that those remarks were made in the context of a family argument rather than in the course of employment. The tribunal rejected the allegation that Mrs Hamann called Mr Maggott stupid in May 2020, and it found no basis for the claims that the return-to-office instruction, the September 2020 visa correspondence, or the comparison with Stefan Engler were acts of age or sex discrimination.

The tribunal rejected the constructive dismissal case. It found that revoking Mr Maggott's access to the computer system was unjustified, but not serious enough to amount to a repudiatory breach. It also found that the grievance process had not been handled unreasonably, that the visa-status concerns were genuine, and that the conduct complained of, whether taken alone or together, did not breach the implied term of trust and confidence. It therefore held that Mr Maggott was not constructively dismissed, and his immediate resignation did not found a wrongful dismissal claim.

The age and sex claims failed because the tribunal found no evidence that pay, promotion, relocation to the UK, working hours or flexible working were influenced by age or sex, and it rejected the suggestion that anyone told him a man of his age could not find work. The holiday pay claim would have succeeded on the facts if UK law had applied, but it was dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The wages claim failed because the claimant did not prove a South African entitlement to full pay while sick, and the expenses and subsistence claim failed because no contractual agreement for those payments was proved. On illegality, the tribunal found that the contract was performed unlawfully because he lacked a right to work, but it declined to refuse enforcement because neither side appreciated the position at the time.