CNN broadcast journalist wins right to bring UK employment claims from abroad
A British broadcast journalist who worked for CNN across Asia and London has won the right to bring unfair dismissal and discrimination claims in the UK, after a tribunal ruled she had sufficient connection to Great Britain during her medical leave.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #territorial-reach
- #international-jurisdiction
- #peripatetic-employee
- #brussels-regulations
- #human-rights-act
- #employment-status
Key facts
- The claimant is a British broadcast journalist who worked for CNN under successive annual contracts from 2013 to 2017.
- She was based in Pakistan (2013-2014) and then split her time between Bangkok and London (2014-2017).
- From March 2017 she was on medical leave in London and her contract was not renewed in August 2017.
- The respondent is a US corporation with a London bureau operated by its UK subsidiary.
- The tribunal found that from 1 March 2017 the claimant was based in Great Britain and had sufficient connection to UK employment law.
Timeline
-
Start of first contract
Claimant began working as a newsgatherer and reporter in Pakistan under a 12-month contract.
-
Deal with Mr Maddox
Claimant agreed with managing director to split time between Asia and London, with London Bureau able to deploy her directly.
-
Foot injury
Claimant injured her foot in Israel, leading to ongoing medical issues.
-
First medical leave
Claimant returned to London for medical leave due to foot injury.
-
Return to Asia
Claimant returned to Thailand and worked in Asia until February 2017.
-
Second medical leave
Claimant returned to London and began a second period of medical leave; stopped renting her Bangkok flat.
-
Last assignment
Claimant deployed by London Bureau to cover London Bridge terror attack.
-
Dismissal meeting
Claimant told her contract would not be renewed; escorted from London Bureau.
-
End of contract
Claimant's 2017 contract expired; she continued to be paid under pay-or-play until this date.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether a peripatetic employee who worked partly abroad could bring UK employment claims, and whether the US-based employer was subject to the tribunal's international jurisdiction.
The outcome
The tribunal ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear most of the journalist's claims, including unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, victimisation, and holiday pay, but only for acts or omissions from 1 March 2017 onwards.
Key reasons:
- From March 2017 the journalist was on medical leave in London, had stopped renting her Bangkok flat, and was deployed by the London Bureau for her last assignment.
- The tribunal applied the 'sufficient connection' test, finding that her employment had a stronger link to Great Britain than to any other country.
- Claims relating to earlier periods (2013-2017) were outside the territorial reach.
No compensation was awarded at this stage as the hearing only determined jurisdiction; the substantive claims will proceed to a full hearing.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees who work partly abroad can still bring UK claims if they have a sufficient connection to Great Britain, especially when based here for medical leave.
- The 'sufficient connection' test considers factors like where the employee is based, where they perform their duties, and the employer's presence in the UK.
- Tribunals can assert jurisdiction over US-based employers if the employee's work has a strong UK connection.
- Claims for earlier periods may be excluded if the employee was not sufficiently connected to Great Britain at that time.
What this case shows in practice
This case illustrates how employment tribunals handle claims from employees who work across multiple countries. The claimant, a British broadcast journalist, worked for CNN under successive annual contracts from 2013 to 2017, splitting her time between Pakistan, Thailand, and London. After she went on medical leave in London in March 2017 and her contract was not renewed, she brought claims for unfair dismissal, discrimination, and holiday pay.
The tribunal had to decide whether she was protected by UK employment law at all, given her peripatetic role and the fact that her employer was a US corporation. The key moment was her return to London in March 2017: she stopped renting her Bangkok flat, was treated as based in London, and was even deployed by the London Bureau to cover the London Bridge terror attack. The tribunal found that from that point, her employment had a sufficient connection to Great Britain.
What the losing side could have done differently
CNN argued that the journalist had no UK employment rights because she was an international correspondent based abroad. However, the tribunal rejected this, noting that the company had a London bureau and had effectively treated her as London-based during her medical leave. Employers with internationally mobile staff should carefully assess where an employee is 'based' for employment law purposes, especially when they are on long-term sick leave in the UK.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This decision is significant for employees who work across borders, particularly those who become ill and return to the UK. It confirms that the territorial reach of UK employment law is not limited to employees who are physically based here full-time. The 'sufficient connection' test allows tribunals to consider factors like where the employee lives, where they are managed from, and the employer's UK presence. The case also shows that US-based employers can be subject to UK tribunal jurisdiction if the employee's work has a strong UK link.
Similar cases
Taxi driver found to be employee and worker, awarded £5,181 for unlawful deductions
A private hire taxi driver was found to be an employee of the vehicle owner and a worker of the dispatch company. He was awarded £5,181.48 for unlawful deduction of wages, but his age discrimination claim was dismissed.
Agency worker's employment status claims dismissed: no contract with end-user
An agency worker who claimed unfair dismissal, sex discrimination and equal pay against the end-user and hirer lost all claims after the tribunal found he was not an employee of either respondent.
Short-service employee wins £3,423 for unpaid bonus and notice pay
A former employee with only four months' service successfully claimed unpaid notice pay and a quarterly bonus after a restructuring meeting led to his dismissal. The tribunal awarded £3,423 in total.
Self-employed surveyor's employment claim struck out: no reasonable prospect of success
A chartered surveyor who worked for Clements Agency Limited for nearly 30 years on a self-employed basis had his claim for unfair dismissal and discrimination struck out. The tribunal found he had no reasonable prospect of proving he was an employee.