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.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #territorial-jurisdiction
- #correct-employer
- #expatriate-worker
- #russian-employment-law
- #recruited-in-london-worked-in-moscow
Key facts
- The claimant was employed by ING Bank (Eurasia) ZAO, a Russian entity, not by ING Bank N.V.
- The claimant's contract of employment was governed by Russian law and he worked habitually in Moscow.
- The claimant brought a claim in the Russian courts against ING Bank (Eurasia) ZAO after his employment ended.
- The claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing and his application for postponement was refused.
- The respondent's ET3 was accepted out of time as the claim form was sent to an old address.
Timeline
-
Offer of employment
ING Bank (Eurasia) ZAO offered the claimant employment as a Senior Sector Analyst in Moscow.
-
Employment contract signed
The claimant signed a contract with ING Bank (Eurasia) ZAO, governed by Russian law.
-
Resignation
The claimant resigned, alleging constructive dismissal.
-
Russian court claim
The claimant brought a claim against ING Bank (Eurasia) ZAO in Russian courts, which was dismissed as out of time.
-
Early conciliation started
Early conciliation between the claimant and ING Bank N.V. began.
-
ET1 presented
The claimant presented his claim to the Employment Tribunal against ING Bank N.V.
-
First case management hearing
REJ Taylor held a telephone preliminary hearing.
-
ET3 presented
The respondent filed its response out of time, denying employment.
-
Preliminary hearing (day 1)
The claimant's postponement application was refused; the hearing proceeded in his absence.
-
Preliminary hearing (day 2)
The tribunal heard evidence and submissions on territorial jurisdiction.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether it had territorial jurisdiction to hear claims for unfair dismissal, discrimination and whistleblowing brought by an employee who was recruited in London but worked in Moscow for a Russian subsidiary of ING Bank N.V.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim in its entirety.
- The claimant was employed by ING Bank (Eurasia) ZAO, a Russian company, not by ING Bank N.V. itself.
- His contract was governed by Russian law and he habitually worked in Moscow.
- The tribunal found no sufficient connection to Great Britain to bring the claims within the territorial scope of the Employment Rights Act 1996 or the Equality Act 2010.
- The respondent's ET3 was accepted out of time, but this did not affect the jurisdictional outcome.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you work abroad for a local subsidiary, your employer is likely that subsidiary, not the parent company — even if you were recruited by the parent's London office.
- UK employment tribunals only have jurisdiction if there is a strong connection to Great Britain, such as working here or being posted abroad temporarily.
- Bringing a claim in the wrong country can waste time and money — check territorial jurisdiction before issuing proceedings.
- If you have already pursued a claim in another country (e.g., Russia), that may affect your options in the UK.
The case in brief
This case shows how territorial jurisdiction can block a claim entirely, even where the employee was recruited in London. The claimant, a Senior Sector Analyst, was offered a job at ING's Moscow office after meetings at the bank's London branch. He signed a contract with ING Bank (Eurasia) ZAO, a Russian entity, and worked in Moscow for two years before resigning and alleging constructive dismissal.
He brought a wide-ranging claim against the Dutch parent company, ING Bank N.V., in the UK Employment Tribunal, alleging unfair dismissal, discrimination, whistleblowing detriment and other claims. But the tribunal had to decide a preliminary issue: did it have jurisdiction at all?
What the tribunal decided
The tribunal found that the correct employer was the Russian subsidiary, not ING Bank N.V. The claimant's contract was governed by Russian law, he worked exclusively in Moscow, and his employment had no sufficient connection to Great Britain. As a result, the tribunal lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear any of the claims under the Employment Rights Act 1996 or the Equality Act 2010.
The claimant did not attend the hearing and his application for a postponement was refused. The tribunal proceeded in his absence and dismissed the claim.
What could have been done differently
From the outset, the claimant could have checked which entity employed him and where his employment was based. If he believed his employer was ING Bank N.V., he needed evidence that the Dutch company controlled his day-to-day work or that he was an expatriate employee with a strong UK connection. Without that, the claim was bound to fail on jurisdiction.
The case also highlights the risk of bringing a claim years after the events — the claimant resigned in 2010 but only started early conciliation in 2020. Even if jurisdiction had been established, time limits would have been a major hurdle.
Why this matters
For anyone considering a UK employment claim after working abroad, this case is a reminder that the tribunal's reach is limited. Being recruited in London or reporting to London managers is not enough — the tribunal will look at where you actually worked, who paid you, and what law governed your contract. If the answer points to another country, the claim belongs there, not in the UK.
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.
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.
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.