Case 2303207/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Samantha Bradley v Sir Elly Kadoorie & Sons Ltd and 5 others — 2024
- Case reference
- 2303207/2022
- Decision date
- 15 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Fowell Representation
Parties
7 namedClaimant
Ms Samantha Bradley
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Bradley, a solicitor who had worked for Sir Elly Kadoorie & Sons Ltd in Hong Kong for many years, brought claims including unfair dismissal, whistleblowing detriments, victimisation, and age, disability, race and sex discrimination. The respondents applied to strike out the proceedings on the basis that the tribunal had no territorial jurisdiction. The tribunal took the claimant's case at its highest and considered the pleaded material, including the later amendment material, her UK visits, her SRA obligations, and her stated intention at one point to return to the UK.
Applying Lawson v Serco Ltd, British Council v Jeffery, Duncombe and Ravat, the tribunal held that the territorial pull of Hong Kong was decisive. Ms Bradley lived and worked in Hong Kong throughout the employment and consultancy arrangements, was paid in Hong Kong dollars, her contracts referred to Hong Kong law and Hong Kong regulatory arrangements, and the work was for a Hong Kong-based employer. The tribunal accepted that she did some work in the UK and that her position as an English solicitor created an additional connection through SRA reporting obligations, but held that those factors did not produce the overwhelmingly closer connection with Great Britain required to displace the general rule.
The tribunal also rejected reliance on the consultancy agreement, which allowed her to choose where to work, and on her intention to return to the UK. It held that the relevant question was the nature of the working arrangements, not personal preference or difficulties caused by Covid restrictions, and noted that she remained in Hong Kong throughout the consultancy and was involved in Hong Kong litigation during that period. Taking the claimant's case at its highest and applying the cautious strike-out approach in discrimination and whistleblowing cases, the tribunal nonetheless found all claims had no reasonable prospect of success and struck them out under Rule 37. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out at the preliminary stage for lack of territorial jurisdiction; the merits were not reached. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Struck out at the preliminary stage for lack of territorial jurisdiction; the merits were not reached. | Struck out | — | — |
| Victimisation | Struck out at the preliminary stage for lack of territorial jurisdiction; the merits were not reached. | Struck out | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Struck out at the preliminary stage for lack of territorial jurisdiction; the merits were not reached. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | Struck out at the preliminary stage for lack of territorial jurisdiction; the merits were not reached. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | Struck out at the preliminary stage for lack of territorial jurisdiction; the merits were not reached. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | Struck out at the preliminary stage for lack of territorial jurisdiction; the merits were not reached. |
Legal tests applied
9 references- Lawson v Serco Ltd
- British Council v Jeffery
- Duncombe v Secretary of State
- Ravat v Haliburton Manufacturing Services Ltd
- Cox v Adecco
- Anyanwu v South Bank Student Union
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust
- Balls v Downham Market High School and College
- HM Prison Service v Dolby
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.