Mr M Choi v Lloyd’s Register Group Services Limited and 1 other — 2024

The tribunal held that Mr Choi’s employment moved from Lloyd’s Register EMEA, where he worked in the UK from 2014, to Lloyd’s Register Canada from May 2021. It found that the parties’ intentions changed in January 2021, that the Canadian offer and work-permit materials identified Lloyd’s Register Canada as the employer, and that the post-2021 role was performed wholly in Canada, with the Claimant paid in Canadian dollars and taxed in Canada. On that basis, the tribunal found that the First Respondent had never been the Claimant’s employer in the relevant period and that the Claimant did not fall within any Lawson v Serco category bringing his employment within the territorial reach of UK employment legislation.

The tribunal therefore held that it had no territorial jurisdiction to hear the claim against either respondent. It found that the Claimant was not posted abroad by a British employer, was not working in a British enclave overseas, did not have his base in Great Britain, and had no continuing connection with Great Britain or British employment law after he moved to Canada. The tribunal also found no evidence that Lloyd’s Register Group Services Limited, or Ms Pamplin, played any part in the Claimant’s employment or working environment, and it noted that Ms Pamplin was not employed by any Lloyd’s Register subsidiary until after the Claimant had left the UK.

Independently of jurisdiction, the tribunal found that the claim was out of time. It held that the unfair dismissal complaint should have been started by 26 June 2023, but ACAS Early Conciliation did not begin until 16 May 2024. For the discrimination complaints, the tribunal identified 13 March 2020 as the relevant UK act complained of and held that the claim was nearly four years late. It rejected the Claimant’s explanation based on mental ill-health and family circumstances, noting medical records showing periods when he was functioning well enough to pursue multiple claims and complaints in Canada and elsewhere, and it held that it would not be just and equitable to extend time. The tribunal accordingly struck out the claim in full and made no award.