Mr W Stasiak v Austen Maritime PTE Limited — 2025

At the preliminary hearing on 5 February 2025, the tribunal considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear Mr W Stasiak’s unfair dismissal claim. It held that the correct respondent was Austen Maritime Services Pte Ltd (AMS), not Stena Drilling Ltd or Stena Drilling HR Ltd. The tribunal relied on the offer letter, the contract of employment and the later replacement contract, all of which named AMS as employer, and found that the involvement of Stena Drilling HR Ltd in recruitment, payroll and HR administration was carried out under a services agreement and did not make it the employer.

On international jurisdiction, the tribunal held that AMS was domiciled in Singapore, not the UK. It rejected the argument that Stena Drilling HR Ltd in Aberdeen was a branch, agency or other establishment of AMS, and also held that the dispute did not arise from the operation of any such UK establishment. The tribunal further found that the claimant did not habitually carry out work in the UK: he never worked in UK waters, and his only UK attendance was for training. It found that he did habitually work in one overseas country, the USA, where he worked continuously for the last nine months of his employment and was assigned at the time of dismissal.

The tribunal also rejected the alternative route based on the place where the business which engaged the claimant was situated. It accepted that the recruitment process involved Stena Drilling HR Ltd in Aberdeen, but held that the reality was that AMS engaged the claimant and that the recruitment arrangements did not disguise the contractual position. On territorial jurisdiction, it applied the Lawson/Ravat line of authority and held that the claimant, a Polish national who lived in Poland, worked wholly outside the UK waters, was paid in sterling but outside the UK tax and NI system, and had a contract governed by Singapore law, did not have the especially strong connection with Great Britain and British employment law required for an expatriate employee. The claim was therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction.