Commodities inspector never worked in UK: tribunal dismisses all claims
A commodities inspector who never set foot in Great Britain for work has had his unfair dismissal, unlawful deductions and breach of contract claims thrown out. The tribunal ruled it had no jurisdiction because the rights he relied on did not apply to him.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #territorial-jurisdiction
- #close-connection-test
- #worker-status
- #breach-of-contract
- #unlawful-deductions
Key facts
- The claimant never worked in Great Britain and had no visa to do so.
- The claimant was a Spanish resident paid in Euros into a Spanish bank account.
- The claimant was recruited by the respondent's Bulgarian subsidiary.
- The claimant performed work only in Greece and Italy.
- The respondent is an English company with a global business model.
- The claimant was found to be a worker, not an employee.
Timeline
-
Expression of interest
Claimant emailed respondent expressing interest in working for the company.
-
Interview
Claimant interviewed by Gergana Kaneva via Skype.
-
Agreement signed
Claimant signed a consultancy agreement with respondent.
-
First rotation started
Claimant began a rotation in Greece auditing tobacco.
-
First rotation ended
Claimant's rotation in Greece ended.
-
Second rotation started
Claimant began a rotation in Italy monitoring raw materials.
-
Last day of work
Claimant performed his last work for the respondent.
-
Preliminary hearing day 1
Hybrid hearing to determine territorial jurisdiction and employment status.
-
Preliminary hearing day 2
Oral judgment given dismissing claims.
-
Judgment sent
Written judgment dismissing claims sent to parties.
The legal issue
Whether a consultant who lived in Spain, was paid in Euros, and performed all his work in Greece and Italy could bring claims under UK employment law against an English company. The tribunal had to decide if the claimant had the necessary connection to Great Britain to fall within the territorial scope of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all of the claimant's claims.
- The unfair dismissal claim was struck out because the claimant had less than two years' continuous employment (a separate, earlier judgment).
- The unlawful deductions claim failed because the claimant was not employed in Great Britain at the relevant time, so the right under s.13 ERA did not apply.
- The breach of contract claim failed because the claimant was not an employee as required by the Employment Tribunals (Extension of Jurisdiction) Order 1994.
- The tribunal also noted that the claimant was a worker, not an employee, but this did not affect the outcome.
No compensation was awarded as all claims were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- UK employment rights generally only apply to employees who work in Great Britain, even if their employer is a UK company.
- If you work abroad and have no visa or permission to work in the UK, you are unlikely to be able to bring claims under the Employment Rights Act.
- A consultancy agreement may mean you are a worker rather than an employee, which limits the types of claims you can bring.
- For unfair dismissal claims, you need at least two years' continuous service; this applies even if you are working overseas in certain circumstances.
This case shows the limits of UK employment protection for workers based abroad. The claimant, a commodities inspector, was recruited by an English company but lived in Spain, was paid in Euros, and carried out all his assignments in Greece and Italy. He never worked in Great Britain and did not have a visa to do so.
When his consultancy agreement ended, he brought claims for unfair dismissal, unlawful deductions from wages, and breach of contract. The tribunal had to decide whether he could rely on UK employment rights at all.
The territorial jurisdiction hurdle
The tribunal applied the 'close connection' test, which asks whether the employee's relationship with Great Britain is sufficiently strong to justify applying UK law. Here, the claimant had no physical presence in the UK for work, was recruited by a Bulgarian subsidiary, and his contract was governed by English law but performed entirely abroad. The tribunal concluded that the rights under the Employment Rights Act did not extend to him.
What the company did right
DRUM Risk Limited had a global business model and clearly documented the claimant's role as a consultant working outside the UK. The tribunal found that the claimant was not an employee but a worker, which also barred the breach of contract claim (which requires employee status). The company's careful structuring of the relationship helped it avoid liability.
What this means for similar claims
Anyone considering bringing a claim against a UK employer while living and working abroad should first check whether they have the required territorial connection. Simply having a UK-based employer or an English-law contract is not enough. The case also reinforces that consultancy agreements often create worker status, not employee status, which limits the available protections.
Similar cases
TUPE transfer meant employer was not liable for constructive dismissal
Two employees who claimed constructive dismissal and unfair dismissal against Britannia Driving School Ltd had their claims dismissed after the tribunal found a TUPE transfer had already moved their employment to another company.
Night porter and maintenance man win claims after employer hid behind corporate maze
A night porter with 14 years' service and a maintenance man were awarded unpaid wages, holiday pay and redundancy after a tribunal found their employer deliberately used a complex corporate structure to avoid responsibility.
Former employee wins over £3,000 after employer fails to attend hearing
A former employee with less than two years' service has been awarded £3,095.34 for unlawful deductions, wrongful dismissal, and failure to provide written particulars after her employer failed to attend the final hearing.
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.