Tribunal jurisdiction

Summary: Tribunal had jurisdiction over individuals living and working in Sweden because the claim was properly served on them there

In Prahl, Hofvenstam & Ågeback v Lapinski, Mr Lapinski, a member of an LLP, brought discrimination claims against the LLP and three of his colleagues who were based in Sweden. The Employment Appeal Tribunal confirmed that the employment tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the claims against the Swedish colleagues, ruling:

• The Tribunal had jurisdiction over the subject of the claim because it involved alleged breaches of the Equality Act 2010.

• There was no issue with territorial jurisdiction – the close connection test from Lawson v Serco was met in relation to the Swedish-based colleagues.

• The tribunal sending the notice of claim and claim form to the colleagues in Sweden was enough to count as proper service under the Employment Tribunal Rules. There was no need for any extra steps for international service.

• Even though it wasn’t essential to the decision, the tribunal had been right to conclude there was an arguable case that s15C Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (which replaced Brussels Recast Regulation after Brexit) also gave it international jurisdiction over Mr Lapinski’s colleagues in this case. Although the Act referred to ‘employer’ and ‘employee’, it should be read with elasticity - Mr Lapinski’s LLP agreement could be treated as an employment contract, and rules covering the ‘employer’ could apply to employees/agents of the LLP (such as Mr Lapinski’s colleagues).