Mr A. Shah v Xerox Limited — 2022

Mr A. Shah brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Xerox Limited. He later applied to amend his case to add protected disclosure detriment, automatic unfair dismissal under sections 103A and 105A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and a redundancy payment claim, but the tribunal dealt first with territorial jurisdiction and did not need to determine the strike-out or amendment applications once it reached its jurisdiction finding.

The tribunal found that the 2013 contract was a new and separate contract under which Mr Shah became a local employee based in Dubai, UAE. It accepted that he had some connections with Great Britain, including recruitment in the UK, negotiation of the 2013 contract by UK staff, UK-based line management, a UK home, and some salary payments into a UK account. Against that, it found stronger connections with UAE: he lived and worked there, his contract location was Dubai, his sick pay and public holiday terms were governed by UAE law, he received UAE end-of-service benefits, and his pay later moved to AED and a UAE bank account.

Applying the territorial reach authorities, including Lawson v Serco, Duncombe, Ravat, and British Council v Jeffery and Green, the tribunal held that the claimant's employment did not have sufficiently strong connections with Great Britain and British employment law to overcome the territorial pull of his place of work. It concluded that the claimant's employment was more strongly connected with UAE, so the Employment Rights Act 1996 complaints could not proceed. The tribunal therefore dismissed the complaints for lack of territorial jurisdiction.