Expat finance manager with 11 years' service loses unfair dismissal claim over territorial jurisdiction
A finance manager who lived and worked in Uganda and Nigeria for over a decade failed to bring his unfair dismissal and discrimination claims in the UK. The tribunal ruled his employment lacked a sufficient connection to Great Britain.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #territorial-jurisdiction
- #expatriate-worker
- #truly-expatriate
- #nigeria-based
- #no-uk-tax
- #standard-contract-clause
Key facts
- The claimant was employed by Heritage Oil & Gas Limited (HOGL), a Mauritian company, and seconded to a Nigerian joint venture.
- The claimant lived and worked in Uganda and Nigeria from 2009, and only visited the UK for annual leave, staying below 90 days per year to avoid UK tax.
- The claimant's contract of employment stated the law of England and Wales applied, but this was a standard clause not negotiated by the parties.
- The claimant was paid in sterling by HOGL, did not pay UK tax or NI, and his salary costs were never recorded in the UK service company.
- The decision to dismiss the claimant was made in Nigeria by the Group CEO and the SNRL board.
Timeline
-
Employment contract signed
The claimant signed a contract of employment with Heritage Oil & Gas Limited (HOGL), a Mauritian company, while he was in Uganda. The contract stated the principal place of employment was Uganda.
-
Secondment to SNRL in Nigeria
The claimant was seconded as Finance Manager to Shoreline Natural Resources Limited (SNRL), a Nigerian joint venture. He moved to Lagos, Nigeria.
-
Evacuated due to Covid
The claimant was evacuated to the UK due to the pandemic, but then moved to Turkey to avoid UK tax, working remotely for SNRL.
-
Redundancy discussions began
The claimant was informed of potential redundancy due to the hiring of a new CFO for SNRL. He expressed a strong preference not to work in the UK.
-
Dismissal letter issued
The claimant was dismissed by HOGL, with a letter signed by Scott Lewis on behalf of HOGL. The decision was made in Nigeria.
-
Preliminary hearing on territorial jurisdiction
The Employment Tribunal heard evidence and submissions on whether the claims fell within the territorial scope of UK employment law.
-
Judgment issued
The Tribunal found that the claimant was employed by HOGL, not HO UK, and that the claims did not fall within the territorial scope of the Employment Rights Act 1996 or the Equality Act 2010.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's employment had a sufficiently strong connection with Great Britain and British employment law to allow his claims for unfair dismissal, age discrimination, holiday pay, and unlawful deduction from wages to proceed, given that he lived and worked abroad.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims because they fell outside the territorial scope of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Equality Act 2010. The key reason was that the claimant was employed by Heritage Oil & Gas Limited (HOGL), a Mauritian company, not by the UK service company. He lived and worked in Uganda and Nigeria, only visited the UK for short holidays, and paid no UK tax or National Insurance. The decision to dismiss was made in Nigeria. No compensation was awarded as the claims were struck out.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you work abroad for a non-UK employer, you may not be protected by UK employment law even if your contract says English law applies.
- A standard clause stating that English law governs your contract is not enough to establish a strong connection to Great Britain.
- Paying no UK tax and spending only a few weeks a year in the UK are strong indicators that you are a 'truly expatriate' worker outside UK law.
- If you want UK employment rights, consider whether your employer has a UK entity that actually employs you and controls your work.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights the difficulty expatriate workers face when trying to bring employment claims in the UK. The claimant, a finance manager with 11 years' service, had worked for the Heritage group in Uganda and Nigeria, only visiting the UK for annual leave. Despite his contract stating that English law applied, the tribunal found that his employment was not sufficiently connected to Great Britain. He was paid by a Mauritian company, paid no UK tax, and his dismissal was decided in Nigeria.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant could have sought to be employed directly by the UK service company, Heritage Oil (UK) Limited, or ensured that his work and tax arrangements created a stronger UK connection. However, the group structure was designed for tax efficiency, and the claimant had actively avoided UK tax by staying fewer than 90 days per year. The tribunal noted that the claimant had a strong preference not to work in the UK, which further weakened his case.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This decision reinforces the principle that UK employment tribunals will only hear claims from workers who are 'in fact' based in Great Britain or have a very close connection to it. Expatriates working for overseas subsidiaries, even if part of a UK-based group, may find themselves without protection under the Employment Rights Act or Equality Act. Anyone considering a similar claim should carefully assess their actual working arrangements, not just the wording of their contract.
Similar cases
India-based software engineer unable to bring UK claim: territorial jurisdiction limits
An Indian-based software engineer who worked for an Indian subsidiary of Alten Limited has had his unfair dismissal and discrimination claims dismissed because the UK tribunal lacked territorial jurisdiction.
Russian-based employee's constructive dismissal claim against ING Bank fails on jurisdiction
A Senior Sector Analyst who worked in Moscow for an ING subsidiary could not bring his constructive dismissal claim against the Dutch parent company in the UK. The tribunal ruled it had no territorial jurisdiction.
US-based finance manager fails to bring unfair dismissal claim in UK tribunal
A finance manager who moved to New York for work was unable to pursue unfair dismissal claims in the UK because his employment had stronger ties to the US. The tribunal ruled it lacked territorial jurisdiction.
Whistleblowing claim by British CECO at Afghan university dismissed for lack of UK jurisdiction
An employment tribunal has ruled it has no jurisdiction to hear claims of unfair dismissal, whistleblowing and race discrimination brought by a former chief ethics officer of the American University of Afghanistan, as the connection to Great Britain was insufficient.