The EAT has given judgment in Pråhl & ors v Lapinski [2025] EAT 77, rejecting a jurisdictional challenge by three respondents domiciled in Sweden to discrimination claims brought against them in an employment tribunal.
The Swedish respondents argued that, since the Brussels Recast Regulation no longer applies in the UK, the tribunal lacked jurisdiction because they had not been served with the claim in the UK (relying on the common law principle that ‘service within the jurisdiction’ gives a court jurisdiction over a defendant). They relied on the distinction drawn in Simpson v Intralinks [2012] ICR 1343 between the ‘territorial scope’ of employment legislation (i.e. whether the territorial scope of statutory rights covers a claimant) and ‘international jurisdiction’ (i.e. whether the tribunal has jurisdiction to hear a claim, or whether it should be heard in a foreign court). They argued that, while the claimant in this case fell within the territorial scope of the Equality Act 2010, there was (post-Brexit) no basis for the tribunal to have ‘international jurisdiction’ over the claims against them. In particular, the Swedish respondents said that, as individuals who were not the claimant’s employer, they fell outside section 15C of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, which enables an employee to sue an overseas employer.
The EAT upheld the employment tribunal’s decision that it had jurisdiction over the claims. In summary:
- A domestic statute whose ‘territorial scope’ covers a claim will itself confer ‘international jurisdiction’, as long as that jurisdiction is not displaced by some other provision with force equal to that of primary domestic legislation (as, for example, the Brussels Regulation formerly displaced international jurisdiction in certain cases): see [29], [43]. In this case, where the Swedish respondents accepted that the claims fell within the territorial scope of the Equality Act 2010, the 2010 Act conferred international jurisdiction.
- Section 15C of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 did not displace international jurisdiction. It was intended to continue the protection of employees (via favourable jurisdiction rules which would not require them to sue different respondents in different jurisdictions) which had previously been secured by the Brussels Recast Regulation [64]-[65], [76]-[77].
The decision has wide ramifications for employment tribunal litigation with an international dimension.
Daniel Stilitz KC and Patrick Halliday acted for the successful claimant, Sebastian Lapinski. They were instructed by Claire Dawson and Theo Nicou of BDBF LLP.
