Case 2304926/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Marsden v Bucher Municipal Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2304926/2020
- Decision date
- 26 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Marsden
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard a preliminary issue on territorial jurisdiction in relation to the claimant's unfair dismissal and disability discrimination complaints. It found that the claimant had moved to Germany, worked mainly from Germany and Latvia, and by the time of dismissal had a contract expressly governed by German law. The tribunal accepted that the respondent was a Great Britain-registered company, but held that the claimant's employment relationship was not one with a sufficiently strong connection to Great Britain and British employment law to bring the claims within the jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunal in England and Wales.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed at a preliminary hearing because the tribunal held it did not have territorial jurisdiction to determine the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed at a preliminary hearing because the tribunal held it did not have territorial jurisdiction to determine the claim; the tribunal said the Bleuse modification did not change that result because the contract was not governed by English law. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Lawson v Serco Ltd
- Ravat v Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd
- Duncombe v Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (No. 2)
- Bleuse v MBT Transport Ltd
- Rome I Regulation
- Recast Brussels Regulation
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.