Mr Alexander Kuznetsov v ING Bank N.V. — 2023

At the preliminary hearing on 30 November and 1 December 2022, Employment Judge Allen KC accepted the respondent's application to present its ET3 out of time. The judge found that the claim form had been sent to an old Amsterdam address, that this explained the delay, and that accepting the response late was proportionate under the overriding objective.

The tribunal found that Mr Kuznetsov was employed by ING Bank (Eurasia) ZAO, not ING Bank N.V. The offer letter and signed contract named ING Bank (Eurasia) ZAO, the contract was governed by Russian labour law, both parties' addresses were in Moscow, his line manager was Moscow-based, he was paid in roubles, and his job description concerned Russian regional telecom and media companies. The judge also relied on the fact that Mr Kuznetsov later brought proceedings in the Russian courts against ING Bank (Eurasia) ZAO.

On that basis, the tribunal held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction. Mr Kuznetsov's habitual place of work was Russia, ING Bank (Eurasia) ZAO had no branch, agency or other establishment in the UK, and even if ING Bank N.V. had been the employer, the Recast Brussels Regulation would not make the UK the proper forum. The tribunal also held that the Employment Rights Act 1996 and Equality Act 2010 did not extend to the claim because the employment relationship did not have a sufficiently strong connection with Great Britain and British employment law, and the Bleuse principle did not apply because the work was outside the EU. The claim was therefore dismissed without any merits findings on the dismissal, wages, discrimination, victimisation, or whistleblowing allegations.