Case 6018986/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Andrew Kieswetter v Debrett’s Education Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6018986/2024
- Decision date
- 30 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burge REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Andrew Kieswetter
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAndrew Kieswetter worked as a tutor for the Beebee family in Kinshasa from 1 December 2023 until 7 October 2024 under an agreement involving Debrett’s Education Limited. The claim form had ticked unfair dismissal, but the tribunal recorded that the claimant said he was in fact pursuing wrongful dismissal / breach of contract for notice pay. He said the agreement entitled him to work until 31 July 2025 and that he had not been paid for the remaining period after termination.
At the preliminary hearing the tribunal accepted that Debrett’s Education Limited was domiciled in England and Wales, so it had international jurisdiction to consider the contractual claim. It also found that the agreement was silent on choice of law. Applying Article 8 of Rome I, the tribunal concluded that the claimant habitually carried out his work in Kinshasa and that, looking at all the circumstances, the contract was more closely connected with the Democratic Republic of Congo.
The tribunal then considered forum non conveniens, referring to Spiliada and Crofts. It took account of the fact that the respondent was based in England, the claimant ordinarily worked in Kinshasa, the notice of termination was given there, and both the claimant and Mr Beebee were in Kinshasa at the time. It concluded that England and Wales was not the proper forum for the claim, and the claim was dismissed. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim for notice pay/wrongful dismissal was treated by the tribunal as a breach of contract claim. It was dismissed at preliminary hearing because the tribunal held that England and Wales was not the proper forum. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 article 3
- Article 8 Rome I Regulation
- forum non conveniens (Spiliada)
- s.15C Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982
- Crofts v Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd
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.