Lawes vs Fleet Maritime Services (Bermuda) Ltd

This case concerned an appeal by Mr. Justin Lawes against Fleet Maritime Services (Bermuda) Ltd, focusing on the jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunal to hear a breach of contract claim under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994.

TLDR:

• Mr. Lawes appealed against a decision to stay a breach of contract claim.
• The Employment Judge had decided not to rule on the jurisdiction issue.
• The appeal was dismissed, upholding the judge's discretion in case management.

The claimant, Mr. Justin Lawes, was employed as a ship's captain by Fleet Maritime Services (Bermuda) Ltd. He was recruited and onboarded in Southampton, with some HR functions managed from there. The respondent company is incorporated in Bermuda and has its operational headquarters in California, USA.

In October 2022, Employment Judge Ryan concluded that the Employment Tribunal did not have jurisdiction over certain claims made by Mr. Lawes. However, he stayed a decision on whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to deal with a breach of contract claim under the 1994 Order, suggesting that a court might accept jurisdiction under international private law.

Judge Susan Walker allowed the appeal to proceed on the ground that EJ Ryan should have decided the breach of contract claim. The claimant argued that the judge failed to reach a decision he was required to make, resulting in a contradictory judgment.

Mr. Pollitt, representing the claimant, contended that the judge's decision was perverse and that the judge had 'sat on the fence' by not deciding the jurisdiction issue. Mr. Reade, representing the respondent, argued that the judge's decision was a case management exercise, allowing the claimant to pursue the matter in court without being fettered by an Employment Tribunal decision.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal considered the procedural differences between the courts and the Employment Tribunal, particularly regarding service of proceedings outside the jurisdiction. The Tribunal upheld the judge's decision, noting that it fell within his discretion to make a case management order staying proceedings.

The Tribunal emphasized that the judge's decision was not certainly wrong and that the complexity of the jurisdictional issue justified the stay. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Employment Judge's case management decision.

Legal representatives: Mr. G Pollitt (instructed by Altralaw) for the Appellant, Mr. D Reade KC (instructed by Outset Limited) for the Respondent.

Judicial Panel: His Honour Judge Beard

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EAT 77