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.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #territorial-jurisdiction
- #expatriate-worker
- #india-based
- #contract-of-employment
- #group-company
Key facts
- The claimant was employed by Alten India Private Ltd, a subsidiary of Alten Ltd, under a contract governed by Indian law.
- The claimant worked and lived in Bangalore, India, and never travelled to the UK for work.
- The claimant's contract provided for exclusive jurisdiction of Indian courts.
- The claimant contributed to a project for Rolls-Royce in Derby, UK, but was based in India.
- The claimant brought a claim in the Bangalore Labour Court, which was stayed pending the UK claim.
Timeline
-
Offer of employment
The claimant received an offer letter from Alten India Private Ltd for the role of engineer – PMO, based in Bangalore.
-
Start of employment
The claimant commenced employment with Alten India Private Ltd.
-
Performance feedback
The claimant received feedback about his performance.
-
Confrontation with local manager
The claimant had a confrontation with a local manager in Bangalore.
-
Email reporting incident
The claimant sent an email reporting an incident at the Bangalore office.
-
Performance review email
Mr Nebot emailed stating the claimant's performance was not at expected level.
-
Removed from project
The claimant was taken off the SSE support work due to performance issues and failure to attend office.
-
Claim presented to tribunal
The claimant presented his claim form to the employment tribunal online.
-
Termination of employment
Alten Private India Ltd terminated the claimant's employment for performance and attendance reasons.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether it had territorial jurisdiction to hear claims of unfair dismissal, discrimination, and other statutory rights brought by an employee who was based in India and employed by an Indian subsidiary of the UK respondent.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims for lack of territorial jurisdiction.
- The claimant was employed by Alten India Private Ltd, a separate legal entity, under a contract governed by Indian law with exclusive Indian court jurisdiction.
- He worked and lived in Bangalore, India, and never travelled to the UK for work.
- The tribunal found no sufficient connection to Great Britain to justify jurisdiction.
- No compensation was awarded as the claims were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you work outside the UK for a local subsidiary, you are unlikely to be able to bring employment claims in a UK tribunal, even if the parent company is UK-based.
- Check your employment contract: if it specifies a foreign governing law and exclusive foreign jurisdiction, UK tribunals will almost certainly decline to hear your case.
- Working on a UK client's project from abroad does not create territorial jurisdiction; the key factor is where you actually perform your work.
- If you want UK employment law protection, you need to be employed by a UK entity and physically work in the UK (or have a sufficiently strong connection).
A clear territorial boundary
This case shows the hard line that tribunals draw when it comes to territorial jurisdiction. The software engineer worked for Alten India Private Ltd, a separate legal entity from the UK respondent Alten Limited. His contract was governed by Indian law and gave exclusive jurisdiction to Indian courts. He lived and worked in Bangalore, never setting foot in the UK for work. Despite contributing to a project for Rolls-Royce in Derby, the tribunal found no basis to hear his claims.
What could have been done differently?
The claimant could have sought employment directly with the UK entity or ensured his contract provided for UK jurisdiction. He also filed a claim in the Bangalore Labour Court, which was stayed pending the UK claim. The tribunal noted that the Indian government requires permission for foreign tribunals to take evidence on its territory, which was not obtained. This procedural hurdle further complicated the case.
Why this matters
For employees working remotely for international groups, this decision reinforces that UK employment rights are tied to physical presence and contractual connection to the UK. Simply working on a UK project or having a UK parent company is not enough. Anyone considering a claim should first check where they are legally employed and where they perform their work, as these factors will determine which country's tribunals have jurisdiction.
Similar cases
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.
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.