Mr S Bacho v Quantel Limited PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2018

The tribunal held that it had territorial jurisdiction to hear Mr S Bacho's unfair dismissal claim against Quantel Limited. It accepted that the respondent was based in Great Britain, that the claimant's contract named Newbury as his normal and primary place of work, that the contract was governed by English law, and that he was expected to work in the UK office for 10 to 12 days per month. On that basis, the tribunal found that he was working in Great Britain at the time of dismissal; alternatively, it held that he was a peripatetic employee whose base was in Great Britain.

The respondent's application to strike out the claim under rule 37 was dismissed. The tribunal said the facts were hotly contested and that the issues could not be resolved without a fuller examination of the evidence, so it was not satisfied that the claim had no reasonable prospects of success.

On the protected-disclosure issue, the tribunal ordered the claimant to pay a £250 deposit if he wished to continue advancing the allegation that emails dated 18 March 2017 and 12 April 2017 amounted to protected disclosures under s.43B ERA 1996. It held that the construction advanced by the claimant was possible but strained, and that the contention had little reasonable prospect of success. No final merits determination or compensation award was made at this hearing.