(1) Partners Group Ltd (UK) (2) Partners Group (USA) Inc v Ms M Mulumba
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Mrs Justice Eady |
| Neutral Citation | UKEAT/0237/20/RN |
| Subject Matter | Not landmark |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Published date | 01 June 2021 |
Copyright 2021
Appeal No. UKEAT/0237/20/RN
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
ROLLS BUILDING, 7 ROLLS BUILDINGS, FETTER LANE, LONDON, EC4A 1NL
At the Tribunal
On 11 May 2021
Judgment handed down 25 May 2021
Before
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE EADY DBE
(SITTING ALONE)
(1) PARTNERS GROUP (UK) LIMITED
(2) PARTNERS GROUP (USA) INC APPELLANTS
MS M MULUMBA RESPONDENT
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
UKEAT/0237/20/RN
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant MR DAVID CRAIG QC
(of Counsel)
MS NAOMI HART
(of Counsel)
Instructed by:
Macfarlanes LLP,
20 Cursitor Street,
London
EC4A 1LT
For the Respondent In Person
UKEAT/0237/20/RN
SUMMARY
TOPIC NUMBER: 30
JURISDICTION – TERRITORIAL SCOPE OF THE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ACT 1996
AND THE EQUALITY ACT 2020
The Claimant was a national of the Democratic Republic of Congo who was accepted on to the
Second Respondent’s Associate Program in the USA. The Second Respondent is a US company
and the Claimant’s offer stated that her contract was governed by the law of New York and her
employment was “at will”. As part of the rotational placements under the Program, and once her
US work visa expired, the Claimant moved to work for other companies in the group, first in
Switzerland and then for the First Respondent in London. She remained, however, an employee
of the Second Respondent. When her time on the Associate Program finished, the Claimant was
not offered a permanent position but her employment was continued as the Respondents wanted
to assist her in maintaining her immigration status in t he UK whilst she looked for other work
(otherwise she would have had to return to the DRC). During this time, the Claimant made various
complaints against the Second Respondent and started proceedings in New York. Subsequently,
the Claimant’s employment was terminated and she brought proceedings in the ET, under the
Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Equality Act 2010, raising various complaints relating
to her employment in the US, Switzerland and in Great Britain. Determining whether the
Claimant fell within the scope of British statutory employment protection, the ET held that it had
jurisdiction to hear the claim. The Respondents appealed.
Held: allowing the appeal in part
In its reasoning, the ET had acknowledged that the Claimant’s claims pre-dating her move to
London were not matters that the ET could determ ine, albeit they would fall to be considered as
part of the background. It was, therefore, wrong for the ET’s Judgment to state that “it does have
jurisdiction to hear the claim” and the Respondents’ appeal would be allowed in this respect.
To continue reading
Request your trial