Case 2304647/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Stuart Elcock v Kellogg Brown & Root (UK) Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2304647/2020
- Decision date
- 13 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rahman Appearances
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Stuart Elcock
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningStuart Elcock was employed by Kellogg Brown & Root (UK) Ltd as a Deputy Project Manager based in Afghanistan and was dismissed by reason of redundancy with an effective date of termination of 23 April 2020. He brought claims for unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction from wages said to relate to unpaid pension contributions. The hearing before Employment Judge Rahman on 7 December 2021 was a preliminary issue on jurisdiction. Early conciliation ran from 18 May 2020 to 18 June 2020 and the claim form was presented on 21 August 2020.
The tribunal considered the territorial scope of section 94(1) ERA 1996 with reference to Lawson v Serco and Duncombe v Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (No 2). It held that the unfair dismissal claim fell within the tribunal's territorial jurisdiction as an exceptional expatriate case. The reasons given included that the claimant was employed by a UK company throughout, the terms and conditions referred to the ERA 1996 and to tribunal jurisdiction, the redundancy process was handled by the respondent's UK head office, the redundancy payment was calculated in line with UK law, the claimant was paid in pounds through HMRC PAYE, had a UK tax code, was on the UK electoral roll, and was required to submit a UK self-assessment tax return.
The tribunal therefore concluded that it had jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim. It did not decide the merits of that claim at this hearing. On the unlawful deduction from wages claim, the tribunal reserved judgment and directed further submissions.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary jurisdiction decision only. The tribunal held that it had jurisdiction under section 94(1) ERA 1996 on the basis that this was an exceptional expatriate case; the merits of the unfair dismissal claim were not determined. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim for unlawful deduction from wages, said to concern unpaid pension contributions, was not finally determined at this hearing. The tribunal reserved judgment on jurisdiction and directed further submissions. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.94(1) ERA 1996
- Lawson v Serco [2006] UKHL 3
- Duncombe v Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (No 2) [2011] ICR 1312 SC
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.