Case 3305472/2022 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the first v Town of Richmond Hill and Teranet — 2024

Case reference: 3305472/2022
Decision date: 5 August 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Hyams

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

In person For the first

Respondent

Town of Richmond Hill and Teranet

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At the hearing on 2 August 2024 at Watford by Cloud Video Platform, Employment Judge Hyams sitting alone struck out all claims against both respondents. The claimant confirmed that her work for both respondents was in Canada, while she was living in Canada. The reasons record that the first employment ended on 14 January 2013 and the second on 10 March 2015, and that the ET1 was presented on 13 May 2022.

The judge found nothing in the ET1 or the other material that brought the claims within the jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunals in Great Britain. The reasons refer to Lawson v Serco Ltd, Duncombe v Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (No 2), and Ravat v Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd as the authorities governing whether overseas employment can fall within GB jurisdiction. The claimant's argument that the UK had jurisdiction because she was British, employed in Canada, in the Commonwealth, and had provided her passport did not alter that conclusion.

The tribunal noted that the claimant had previously been warned in a letter dated 9 May 2023 that the tribunal might have no jurisdiction if she had been employed outside Great Britain. It also noted that the hearing notice dated 31 July 2024 identified jurisdiction as a possible ground for dismissal, but that the requirements of rule 54 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 were not met. The judge nevertheless concluded that the claims were outside jurisdiction and struck them out, recording that any application for reconsideration would fall to be considered under rules 70 to 72. No monetary award was made.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Breach of contract	Struck out with the other claims because the tribunal found the employment was outside Great Britain and therefore outside Employment Tribunal jurisdiction.	Struck out	—	—
Race discrimination	Struck out with the other claims because the tribunal found the employment was outside Great Britain and therefore outside Employment Tribunal jurisdiction; the reasons do not separately analyse this claim.	Struck out	Race	—
Sex discrimination	Struck out with the other claims because the tribunal found the employment was outside Great Britain and therefore outside Employment Tribunal jurisdiction; the reasons do not separately analyse this claim.	Struck out	Sex	—
Unfair dismissal	Struck out with the other claims because the tribunal found the employment was outside Great Britain and therefore outside Employment Tribunal jurisdiction.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.