The claimant, Saima Bhatti, was employed by CNN from 2013 to 2017 as an Asian correspondent but dismissed after she changed her permanent residence to her London flat. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that claims in respect of wrongful acts from 1 March 2017 onwards were justiciable in England and Wales, and that the tribunal had international jurisdiction in respect of these claims.

Moved permanently

From 2013 to 2017 the claimant, a British national of Pakistani heritage, was employed under a contract governed by the law of Georgia, USA, as a broadcast journalist mostly covering stories in Asia. When she was not abroad, based out of her flat in Bangkok, the claimant would return to London for holidays and frequently attended the office of CNN’s London subsidiary. In 2014, the claimant sustained a serious foot injury when a truck ran over her in Jerusalem, for which she received medical treatment first in Israel and then in London.

From March 2017 the clamant moved to London permanently in connection with her ongoing treatment and sought to become London-based. The respondent declined her request to become London-based and after she had worked for one day on an assignment in London in June 2017, instructed the London subsidiary not to deploy her on assignments without permission from the Atlanta headquarters. She was dismissed with immediate effect in August 2017 but received pay under her contract until the end of the year.

It was found by the Employment Judge that the claimant was a peripatetic employee, and her claims were justiciable in England and Wales but only in respect of any wrongs committed after her return to London in March 2017. On appeal, the respondent submitted that the judge ought to have classed the claimant as an expatriate worker and he had erred in finding that she had been permitted at any time to work in London.

For the claimant it was submitted that it had been common ground that the claimant’s duties were performed in various locations worldwide, including in London. The finding that she was a peripatetic worker was not a finding in law. The judge was entitled to find that from 1 March 2017 onwards there was a connection between the circumstances of the claimant’s employment and British employment law sufficiently strong for her to have a claim for unfair dismissal in Great Britain.

Left for good

In his decision, Justice Kerr said of the claimant’s employment status: “The adjective ‘peripatetic’ comes from the Greek ‘peripatetikos’ meaning ‘walking about’. Applied to an employee in the modern era (rather than to ambulatory philosophical discussions in ancient Athens), it describes an employee whose work takes her from place to place. It is not a complicated or sophisticated concept. I agree with Mr Gorasia that it is not a statutory defined term or a term of art.”

He continued: “The judge decided in this case at that the claimant was a peripatetic employee with not one but two work bases — Bangkok and London, from which bases she worked at various times. In my judgment, he was entitled to find, evaluating the evidence, that from 1 March 2017 the main base became London and ceased to be Bangkok. Put simply, the claimant left Bangkok for good at the end of February 2017 and based herself from then on at her home in London and sought to relocate her work base to the London bureau, as well as obtaining medical treatment in London. I can find no flaw in that reasoning or the conclusion the judge drew from it.”

Considering whether the tribunal had international jurisdiction, Kerr J said: “The judge took as his starting point the domestic statutory provisions creating the relevant causes of action: sections 23 and 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, section 120 of the Equality Act 2010 and regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. These, he reasoned at, conferred jurisdiction on employment tribunals in Great Britain by providing that an employee may present a complaint to a tribunal which the tribunal (absent any procedural bar) must consider and determine.”

He concluded: “The judge set out his reasons for deciding that the London bureau was ‘not a mere ‘innocent bystander’ in this dispute. It had deployed the claimant on paid assignments where she claimed the rate paid was discriminatory. It had been the scene of the dismissal in August 2017. A member of its HR staff had been present to escort the claimant off the premises. The London bureau chief had decided not to use the claimant’s services after June 2017. To work from the London bureau on a phased return to work was a reasonable adjustment sought.”

The EAT therefore dismissed the appeal and allowed the claim to proceed to determination on its merits.