in person (Ms S Adams as MacKenzie friend) For the v 48.3 International Consultancy Engineering Services LLC and others — 2020

The tribunal held that Mr Gregory was employed by the first respondent under a contract to work in Dubai, under UAE law, and paid in local currency. He lived in Dubai and worked there for the first respondent; the tribunal found that any connection with Great Britain flowed from his personal circumstances, family and qualifications, not from the employment itself. Applying the Lawson line of authorities, including Duncombe and Ravat, it concluded that there was no sufficient connection with Great Britain to give the Employment Tribunal jurisdiction over the unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction claims.

On the facts found, the tribunal said the claimant could not be treated as a commuter because he lived and worked in Dubai. It considered the claimant's arguments about his UK family base, CITB qualifications, the first respondent's UK sister company, and references to travel to the UK, but held those points did not displace the general rule that the place of work was decisive. The claims against all respondents were therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

In the alternative, the tribunal held that if British employment law applied, the claims were still out of time. It found that the claimant had not been paid since January 2017, left Dubai on 10 April 2017, and that this amounted to acceptance of a repudiatory breach in British law even though he said he had not been dismissed. On that basis, the effective termination date was 10 April 2017 at the latest, so the 2019 ET1 was well outside the primary limitation periods for both unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction from wages.

The tribunal also held that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claims in time. It considered the claimant's statement that he had been 'fobbed off' when he asked for payment, but concluded that this did not prevent a timely claim. Early conciliation did not alter that conclusion. The result was that, even if jurisdiction existed, both claims would have been dismissed as time-barred.