Mr M Raphael v Rigicon Inc and 2 others — 2025

This preliminary hearing did not determine the merits of the case. It decided territorial jurisdiction, appropriate forum, and whether claims against the individual respondents should be struck out. Mr Raphael had brought unfair dismissal, race discrimination, and contractual claims for notice and holiday pay against Rigicon Inc, together with direct race discrimination and harassment allegations against Mr Atay and a proposed direct race discrimination amendment against Mr Luleci.

The tribunal held that the New York choice-of-law clause did not prevent Mr Raphael relying on non-derogable English statutory rights. Applying Rome I article 8(2) and the Lawson/Duncombe/Ravat line of authority, it found that he habitually worked in Great Britain, specifically England. The tribunal accepted that most of his work was done from his home in Cheshire, with additional work supporting surgeries and travelling within Great Britain, and that his shorter overseas trips did not alter the base of his work. On that basis, it held that the unfair dismissal and Equality Act claims against the first respondent were within the tribunal's territorial jurisdiction.

The claims against Mr Atay and Mr Luleci were struck out. The tribunal applied Bamieh v Foreign and Commonwealth Office and found no sufficient connection between those individual claims and Great Britain or British employment law. Mr Atay had no discernable UK connection, and Mr Luleci's common employment with Mr Raphael was not enough given the American employer and the wider facts. The tribunal also refused the application to amend the claim form against Mr Luleci, because amendment would not solve the underlying jurisdiction problem.

The tribunal separately held that it had jurisdiction to hear the breach of contract claim under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. It also held that Manchester was the appropriate forum under section 15C of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982. The surviving claims against the first respondent were allowed to proceed to a final hearing, and no monetary remedy was determined in this judgment.