Case 4111228/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Haughey v 10 Prosafe Offshore Employment Company PTE Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 4111228/2019
- Decision date
- 26 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Sutherland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Haughey
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant, a UK national living in England, worked for the Singapore-based Respondent as a Maintenance Engineer from 14 January 2011 to 26 June 2019 on offshore accommodation vessels in the North Sea. The hearing was a preliminary one on international jurisdiction, applicable law and territorial reach for claims of unfair dismissal, statutory redundancy pay, breach of contract for enhanced redundancy pay, and unlawful deduction from wages. The contract was described as standard international terms and included a Singapore governing-law clause, while the redundancy process was run through Prosafe Offshore Limited in Aberdeen and the Claimant received notice of dismissal on 27 March 2019 with termination effective on 26 June 2019.
On the breach of contract claim, the tribunal applied Recast Brussels I and the habitual place of work test in Weber. It found that, taking the whole employment relationship into account, the Claimant had worked across the UK, Norway and some work in Poland, and that there were two places of equal importance rather than a habitual place of work in any one country. The claim concerned alleged enhanced redundancy pay arising from a voluntary redundancy arrangement estimated at about £10,500, but the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear that contractual claim and dismissed it.
For the statutory claims, the Respondent accepted that the tribunal had international jurisdiction, and the issue was territorial reach under the ERA 1996. Applying Lawson, Duncombe and Ravat, the tribunal held that the employment had a sufficiently close connection with Great Britain and British employment law to fall within the territorial scope of the 1996 Act. It noted that the Claimant was working in Norway when notice was served, but by the end of the notice period he was working in the UK, and that the employment relationship was not purely expatriate. The tribunal therefore held that it had jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal, statutory redundancy pay and unlawful deduction from wages claims, but it made no merits findings and no remedy award at this stage.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim for enhanced redundancy pay under an alleged voluntary redundancy agreement. Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the tribunal found the Claimant did not habitually carry out work in any one country and the dispute did not arise out of a branch, agency or establishment in a member state. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary ruling only: the tribunal held it had jurisdiction to hear the claim, but made no merits determination. | Other | — | — |
| Redundancy | Preliminary ruling only: the tribunal held it had jurisdiction to hear the statutory redundancy pay claim, but made no merits determination. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Preliminary ruling only: the tribunal held it had jurisdiction to hear the unlawful deduction from wages claim, but made no merits determination. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- Recast Brussels I Regulation Article 21
- Weber v Universal Ogden Services Ltd
- Lawson v Serco Ltd
- Duncombe v Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (No. 2)
- Ravat v Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd
- Rome I Regulation Article 8
- Employment Tribunals Act 1996 section 3
- ERA 1996 section 204
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.