How Far Does the Territorial Jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunal Extend?

In Pervez v Macquarie Bank Limited (UK EAT 0246/10), the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that an employee of a Hong Kong based company who was seconded to London had various rights under UK employment law and therefore had to be permitted to enforce those rights in an English Employment Tribunal.

Mr Pervez worked for MCSL, a company incorporated and based in Hong Kong.  He was seconded temporarily to London but remained employed by MCSL.  After a year on secondment, Mr Pervez was told that his assignment would terminate and that there was no work for him in Hong Kong.  Mr Pervez commenced proceedings for various claims, including unfair dismissal and discrimination.

It was accepted by the Tribunal and the EAT that Mr Pervez had rights under English employment legislation, even though he had only been temporarily working on secondment i.e. he had the right not to be unfairly dismissed and the right not to be discriminated against.  However, under Regulation 19 of the Employment Tribunal Regulations a Tribunal only has jurisdiction to hear those claims where the Respondent "resides or carries on business in England and Wales".   

The Tribunal Judge held that the effect of Regulation 19 was that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction because MCSL could not be said to have been carrying on business in England.  However, the EAT felt that it was wrong in principle for employees notionally to have employment protections under English law but not to be able to enforce them in the Tribunal.  It therefore gave a strained interpretation of Regulation 19 and allowed the claims to be heard.