EAT upheld ET decision that it had jurisdiction to hear discrimination claims against three individuals who were resident in Sweden. The Claimant, who was a member of an LLP in the UK, filed complaints under the Equality Act 2010 against TIA LLP and several individuals, including the Swedish Respondents. The Swedish Respondents argued that the tribunal lacked international jurisdiction since they were not present in the UK when the claim was issued or served, and that they could not be considered employers under the relevant legislation.
The tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the claims were properly served according to the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 (since superseded and replaced from the 6.1.25 by the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024), which do not require special provisions for overseas parties. Additionally, the Tribunal also concluded that Mr Lapinski had a credible argument that he qualified as an “employee” under section 15C of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, which preserves protections from European law allowing employees to bring claims where they work, even if colleagues are based abroad.
The EAT dismissed the appeal by the Swedish Respondents, emphasising that territorial jurisdiction suffices unless displaced by another instrument. It confirmed that employment tribunal rules form a complete code for asserting jurisdiction over respondents, including those abroad. The EAT also supported the tribunal's reliance on S.15C to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and protects LLP members. As regards the assertion by the Swedish Respondents that they were not the Claimant's employer, section 110 of the Equality Act 2010 clearly states that employees and agents can be held personally liable for discriminatory acts carried out on behalf of their employer.
