Case 3335401/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Saiyid v The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford trading as Oxford University Press — 2019
- Case reference
- 3335401/2018
- Decision date
- 13 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Saiyid
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs A Saiyid was recruited in Oxford in 1988 to head Oxford University Press Pakistan, but the tribunal found that she lived and worked in Pakistan throughout her employment. It held that the respondent employer was the Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford trading as Oxford University Press, rather than OUP Pakistan, because OUP Pakistan was not a separate legal entity and the appointment documents were with OUP.
The claimant brought complaints of sex, race and age discrimination and unlawful deduction from wages. The tribunal applied the territorial jurisdiction principles in Lawson v Serco, Duncombe, Ravat, Dhunna, and Jeffrey/Green, asking whether the employment relationship had a sufficiently strong connection with Great Britain to overcome the territorial pull of Pakistan. It accepted UK connections such as recruitment in Oxford, management and appraisals from Oxford, regular business travel to the UK, and salary and bonus decisions made by OUP.
Balancing those factors against the stronger Pakistan connections, the tribunal noted that the claimant lived and worked in Pakistan, was paid in Pakistani rupees for most of her employment, paid tax in Pakistan, had Pakistan-based provident fund and gratuity arrangements, and worked mainly for OUPP in its local market. It also considered the 23 August 2017 agreement choosing Pakistan law and exclusive jurisdiction, but did not treat that as a key factor.
The tribunal concluded that the connection with Great Britain and British employment law was not sufficiently strong to displace the general rule that the place of work was decisive. It therefore held that it had no territorial jurisdiction to hear the claims and dismissed them. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction, not on the merits. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction, not on the merits. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Age discrimination | Dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction, not on the merits. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction, not on the merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Lawson v Serco territorial jurisdiction principles
- Duncombe v SoS for Children, Schools and Families special connection exception
- Ravat v Halliburton sufficient connection question
- Dhunna comparative exercise
- Jeffery and Green territorial reach principles
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.