Case 3305409/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Eliezer Hoffman v Xexec Ltd and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 3305409/2022
- Decision date
- 9 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Boyle Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Eliezer Hoffman
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt this preliminary hearing, the tribunal decided whether it had territorial jurisdiction over the claimant's Employment Rights Act claims. It found that the claimant moved to New York in July 2019, lived and worked there until the end of his employment, was paid in US dollars into a US bank account, paid US taxes, observed US holidays, and was no longer in the UK pension scheme. The tribunal accepted that he was British and had been recruited in the UK, but found that he was not a commuter and was instead an expatriate worker based in the United States.
When comparing the connecting factors, the tribunal accepted some links with Great Britain, including a UK line manager, some sterling commission payments, the 2020 contract being governed by English law, and some work for the UK company. It found those factors were outweighed by the US connections: the claimant's New York base, the visa application describing the move as a role to build the US finance function and grow US sales, the claimant's own evidence that he moved to grow the US side of the business and client base, and the respondents' treatment of him as a US employee. The tribunal also treated the English-law clause in the 2020 contract as boilerplate rather than a specifically negotiated jurisdiction clause.
Applying Lawson v Serco, Duncombe, Ravat, British Council v Jeffery and Green, Bleuse, and Lodge and Dignity & Choice in Dying, the tribunal held that the claimant's employment did not have a sufficiently strong connection with Great Britain and British employment law to displace the general rule that the place of work is decisive. It therefore held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to determine the unfair dismissal, automatically unfair dismissal under TUPE/Part X ERA 1996, and unauthorised deductions from wages claims. It made no finding on the respondents' standing argument in relation to the TUPE regulation 15 consultation issue at that hearing, and said the breach of contract and TUPE consultation claims would proceed to a later hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Tribunal held it had no territorial jurisdiction under s.111 ERA 1996; the claimant was based in New York from July 2019 and was found to be an expatriate worker, not a commuter. | Other | — | — |
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | Automatically unfair dismissal under Reg 7 TUPE Regulations 2006 and Part X ERA 1996; tribunal held it had no territorial jurisdiction. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unauthorised deductions from wages under s.13 ERA 1996, including alleged unpaid holiday, bonuses, overtime, national insurance and pension contributions; tribunal held it had no territorial jurisdiction. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Lawson v Serco territorial reach
- Duncombe stronger connection
- Ravat fact and degree
- British Council v Jeffery and Green territorial guidance
- Bleuse v MBT Transport Ltd
- Lodge and Dignity & Choice in Dying
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.