The EAT upheld an Employment Tribunal’s decision that a British journalist who worked primarily in Asia until returning to London for medical treatment could bring claims against her US-based employer, but only for alleged wrongs after 1 March 2017, when London became her work base.

Background

The Claimant, a British citizen of Pakistani heritage, worked as a journalist for Cable News International Inc. (CNN) from 2013 to 2017 under a contract governed by Georgia law. She worked “peripatetically”, primarily in Asia with a Bangkok base from 2015-2017, but returned to London in March 2017 for treatment of a work-related foot injury. CNN declined her request to work permanently from London, though she was deployed for one day in June 2017. In August 2017, she was notified at CNN’s London bureau that her contract would not be renewed after December. She subsequently brought claims including discrimination, victimisation, unfair dismissal and equal pay.

Judgment

The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed CNN’s appeal, confirming that:

• The territorial scope question was properly decided as the judge was entitled to find that the employment had a sufficient connection with Great Britain from March 2017, when London displaced Bangkok as the Claimant’s base.
• CNN’s challenges to international jurisdiction failed as the Brussels Regulation did not give a non-EU domiciled defendant the right to be sued exclusively in its non-EU domicile. Additionally, the judge correctly found the London bureau was a “branch, agency or other establishment” from whose operations the dispute arose.
• The tribunal had not erred in accepting that claim documents delivered to CNN’s London subsidiary satisfied procedural requirements, as the respondent had received them and responded accordingly.

Endnote

This judgment reinforces that peripatetic employees’ “base” can evolve, with territorial jurisdiction potentially following such changes. Employment tribunals should focus on the reality of the employment relationship rather than contractual terms in determining jurisdiction, reflecting the intention behind the Parliament’s repeal of section 196 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Read the full judgment of the Employment Appeal Tribunal: Cable News International v Bhatti [2025] EAT 63