Expatriate legal counsel working in Dubai: UK employment rights do not apply
A British solicitor working for Standard Chartered Bank in the Dubai International Financial Centre had her unfair dismissal and discrimination claims struck out because the tribunal lacked territorial jurisdiction.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #territorial-jurisdiction
- #expatriate-worker
- #dubai-international-financial-centre
- #british-employer
- #no-uk-tax-paid
Key facts
- The claimant is a British citizen and solicitor who lived and worked in Dubai, UAE, from 2011.
- She was employed by Standard Chartered Bank as legal counsel in the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) from 29 October 2014.
- Her contract specified DIFC as place of work, salary in UAE dirhams, and was governed by DIFC employment law.
- She did not pay UK income tax or national insurance on her earnings.
- The tribunal found that the connection to the UAE/DIFC was strong and the connection to the UK was insufficient to overcome the territorial pull of the place of work.
- The complaints under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and Equality Act 2010 were struck out for lack of territorial jurisdiction.
Timeline
-
Moved to Dubai
The claimant moved to Dubai, UAE, with her daughter and began working there.
-
Employment contract signed
The claimant signed a contract of employment with Standard Chartered Bank, dated 14 October 2014.
-
Employment commenced
The claimant started work as legal counsel in the AME team at the DIFC office.
-
Line manager moved to Singapore
Mr Tobias, the claimant's line manager, moved to Singapore; the claimant was then managed from Singapore.
-
Sickness absence began
The claimant became unwell and went on sickness absence, not returning to work.
-
Employment terminated
The claimant's employment was terminated, and she had to leave the UAE within 30 days due to visa requirements.
-
Preliminary hearing (day 1)
The tribunal heard evidence and arguments on territorial jurisdiction.
-
Preliminary hearing (day 2)
The tribunal continued hearing the preliminary issue.
-
Judgment on preliminary hearing
The tribunal issued a judgment striking out the claims for lack of territorial jurisdiction.
-
Reconsideration judgment
Employment Judge Glennie revoked a previous judgment dismissing the breach of contract claim on withdrawal, due to administrative error.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether a British employee who lived and worked in the Dubai International Financial Centre had a sufficient connection to Great Britain for UK employment laws to protect her from unfair dismissal and discrimination.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the claims for unfair dismissal and discrimination because it had no territorial jurisdiction.
The key reason was that the claimant was a true expatriate: she lived and worked in Dubai, her contract was governed by DIFC law, and she paid no UK tax. The connection to the UK was not strong enough to overcome the 'territorial pull' of her place of work.
No compensation was awarded as the claims were dismissed at a preliminary stage.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you work abroad for a British employer, check whether UK employment laws apply — the key factor is the strength of your connection to Great Britain.
- Paying UK tax and National Insurance is a strong indicator that UK employment rights may apply, even if you work overseas.
- A contract governed by local law and specifying a foreign workplace makes it harder to claim UK protections.
- Tribunals will look at the whole picture, including where you live, where you work, and the employer's structure, to decide if there is a 'sufficient connection' to the UK.
When UK employment law does not follow you abroad
This case shows the limits of UK employment protection for expatriate workers. The claimant, a British solicitor, worked for Standard Chartered Bank in the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) for several years. When her employment ended, she brought claims for unfair dismissal and discrimination in the London Central Employment Tribunal. However, the tribunal had to first decide whether it had the power to hear those claims at all.
The tribunal applied the 'sufficient connection' test from recent case law. It found that the claimant was a true expatriate: she lived and worked in Dubai, her contract was governed by DIFC law, and she paid no UK tax or National Insurance. The fact that her employer was a British bank and she was a British citizen was not enough to overcome the strong territorial pull of her place of work.
What the employer did right
Standard Chartered Bank had structured the employment relationship clearly around DIFC law. The contract specified the DIFC as the place of work, salary was paid in UAE dirhams, and the governing law was that of the DIFC. This made it difficult for the claimant to argue that UK law should apply.
What this means for similar claims
For anyone working abroad for a British employer, this case is a reminder that UK employment rights are not automatic. The tribunal will weigh factors like where you live, where you work, your tax status, and the terms of your contract. If you are a true expatriate with little connection to the UK, you may need to rely on local employment laws instead. The case also highlights the importance of getting legal advice on jurisdiction before bringing a claim 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.
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.