In person For the v Respondent — 2021

Ms Tokody worked for Cover-More from 2011 and was reassigned to the UK in 2017 under a UK Employment Agreement with Cover-More Insurance Services (UK) Ltd and a linked UK Assignment Letter. She was told her role was at risk of redundancy in November 2018, was dismissed by redundancy letter dated 14 December 2018, appealed, and her employment ended on 14 June 2019. The tribunal treated the ET1 as raising ordinary unfair dismissal and automatic unfair dismissal under ERA ss.94 and 103A, and also as possibly including contractual or implied-term claims connected with the UK Employment Agreement and Assignment Letter.

On the preliminary issues, the tribunal held that the English Employment Tribunal had international jurisdiction over all elements of the claims. It found that both respondents were employers for jurisdiction purposes, rejected the contention that the second respondent alone was the real employer for these purposes, and held that the claims were sufficiently connected with Britain and British employment law. It also relied on the contractual choice-of-law and exclusive jurisdiction provisions in the UK Employment Agreement, and held that the UK was where Ms Tokody habitually carried out her work or at least the last place where she did so.

On protected disclosures, the tribunal found that Ms Tokody had made qualifying disclosures in relation to Air Canada, Arsenal, Travelex and Innate, and that she reasonably believed those disclosures were made in the public interest. It did not accept that any other disclosures were established for that purpose. The hearing was confined to these preliminary issues, so there was no merits determination and no monetary award.