Case 6019340/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Margetson v Mishcon de Reya LLP — 2025
- Case reference
- 6019340/2024
- Decision date
- 28 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Margetson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant, a British citizen and England & Wales solicitor, worked for Mishcon de Reya LLP in Singapore from August 2020. The Tribunal accepted that he was an expatriate employee who lived and worked wholly outside Great Britain, with only de minimis visits to London over the four years of his membership of the LLP. The issue at the preliminary hearing was whether the whistleblowing provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996 had territorial reach over that employment.
Applying the authorities on territorial scope, including Lawson v Serco, Duncombe, Ravat, Bates van Winkelhof, Jeffrey and Dhunna, the Tribunal held that the Claimant had not shown the much stronger connection with Great Britain and British employment law required to displace the general rule that the place of work is decisive. Factors relied on by the Claimant, including his British nationality, English qualification, London-based LLP membership, English law clause, LCIA arbitration clause, and the London parent firm's oversight of the Singapore branch, were held to carry limited weight or to be ordinary incidents of a London LLP operating an overseas branch.
The Tribunal found that the Singapore office was a branch of the London LLP, but that it operated as a self-contained Singapore practice serving a Far Eastern client base, with day-to-day management in Singapore by Ms Tahira Ara. The Claimant's work did not involve London matters, and his occasional work in Great Britain was not enough to change the overall territorial analysis. The Tribunal also rejected reliance on any comparison between the protections available under Singaporean and British whistleblowing law.
The Tribunal concluded that Parliament could not have intended the whistleblowing provisions of the 1996 Act to extend to this employment, described the case as a paradigm example of an individual employed to work abroad, and held that any statutory employment law remedy would lie abroad. It therefore held that it had no jurisdiction and dismissed all claims.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Dismissed at a preliminary hearing because the Tribunal held that the territorial reach of the Employment Rights Act 1996 did not extend to the Claimant's employment in Singapore, so it had no jurisdiction to consider the whistleblowing detriment complaints. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- Simpson v Intralinks Ltd territorial scope distinction
- Lawson v Serco Ltd territorial scope
- Duncombe much stronger connections test
- Ravat fact and degree connection test
- Bates van Winkelhof territorial pull analysis
- Jeffrey v British Council territorial pull of place of work
- Dhunna no comparison of competing labour law merits
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.