This case concerned whether the employment tribunals (ET) in England & Wales had jurisdiction over three individuals who were members of a limited liability partnership (LLP) and who lived and worked in Sweden.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that the tribunal did have jurisdiction. The case is Prahl, Hofvenstam & Ageback v Lipinski.
Mr Lapinski who was similarly a member of the LLP brought discrimination claims on the partnership and three of his colleagues who were individually named as respondents.
Remember that in discrimination cases individuals can be personally liable for discrimination as well as the employing organisation.
The EAT confirmed that the ET did have jurisdiction over the Swedish colleagues. Its reasoning included the following:
- Territorial jurisdiction was not in issue. The close connection test from Lawson v Serco was met.Â
- The ET had jurisdiction over the claim because it alleged breaches of the Equality Act 2010.Â
- The ET had sent the notice of claim and claim form (ET1) to the Swedish colleagues. This was adequate to count as proper service of the claim under the ET Rules. No extra steps were required to effect international service.Â
- There was an arguable case that section 15 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (the Act)(which replaced the Brussels Recast Regulation post-Brexit) also conferred international jurisdiction over the Swedish colleagues. The Act uses the terms employer and employee and this case concerned LLP members the EAT said it should be read with elasticity.
Extra consideration should be given any time a claim is to be served outside the strict jurisdiction of the employment tribunals of England & Wales but this case serves to illustrate that there may be fewer barriers than previously anticipated.
This blog was written by Anita Vadgama, Partner at didlaw.Â
