Mr M Reid v BGC Technology International Limited — 2021

Mr Reid worked for the respondent from 24 September 2004 and, after moving to Hong Kong on 1 January 2006, continued to work there until his dismissal on 30 April 2020. The contract was governed by English law and included an exclusive English jurisdiction clause, but the tribunal found that his day-to-day working life, home life, tax position, regulatory obligations, and HR support were all centred in Hong Kong. It also found that his role was to support colleagues in Hong Kong, with reporting lines in Asia, even though his work also benefited the respondent globally and in London.

Applying the territorial authorities including Lawson v Serco, Duncombe, and Ravat, the tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal, redundancy, and age discrimination claims. The claimant had lived and worked in Hong Kong for many years, was not peripatetic, had permanent residence there, and was linked to Hong Kong through local tax, provident fund, and regulatory arrangements. The choice of law and jurisdiction clauses, the sterling salary converted into Hong Kong dollars, the housing allowance, and annual flights were not enough to displace the general rule that the place of employment is decisive.

The tribunal did have jurisdiction to hear the breach of contract claim. It held that the claim was properly before the tribunal under the Recast Brussels Convention and that, on construction of the contract, English law applied to the notice term. Relying on Secretary of State for Employment v Wilson, the tribunal found that the statutory minimum notice under section 86 ERA 1996 was incorporated into the contract. Because Mr Reid had more than 12 years' service, he was contractually entitled to 12 weeks' notice of termination, rather than the one month paid in lieu.