Diggins v Condor Marine Crewing Services Ltd

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLord Justice Elias,Mr Justice Coleridge
Judgment Date13 October 2009
Neutral Citation[2009] EWCA Civ 1133
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)
Date13 October 2009
Docket NumberCase No: A2/2009/0357

[2009] EWCA Civ 1133

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE

COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM THE EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

Before:

Lord Justice Elias and

Mr Justice Coleridge

Case No: A2/2009/0357

Between
Diggins
Respondent/Claimant
and
Condor Marine Crewing Services Limited
Appellant/Defendant

Mr P Meade (instructed by Lester Aldridge LLP) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.

Ms C Adjei (instructed by Messrs Hobbs Durrant) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

(As Approved)

Lord Justice Elias

Lord Justice Elias:

1

The principal issue in this case is whether a seaman, who was employed on a ship but not one registered in a port in Great Britain, can in any circumstances bring a claim for unfair dismissal. The second issue is whether, assuming that he can, he is entitled to do so in the particular circumstances in this case.

2

The background facts are not in dispute and were not so before the Employment Tribunal. They are as follows. Condor Marine Crewing Services Limited, the appellant, is a company operating out of and registered in Guernsey. It employed Mr Diggins through a subsidiary company as a chief officer on board a vessel which plied its trade primarily between the Channel Islands and Portsmouth. The vessel itself is registered in Nassau in the Bahamas. For the duration of Mr Diggins' duties on board ship, which typically involved two-week rosters, he lived on the vessel. His home is in Lowestoft. Mr Diggins was dismissed with effect from 1 April 2007. He claimed that his dismissal was unfair and the company denies this. However, a preliminary issue raised before the Employment Tribunal was whether it had jurisdiction to hear his claim. The Employment Tribunal held that it did not, but that decision was overturned on appeal by the Employment Appeal Tribunal, HHJ Burke QC sitting alone. The EAT, in a judgment of conspicuous quality, concluded that the tribunal did in principle have jurisdiction to hear a claim for unfair dismissal, notwithstanding that the employee was employed on board a vessel registered outside Great Britain and that the relevant conditions necessary to satisfy the exercise of that jurisdiction existed in this case. Both these conclusions are the subject of appeal.

The relevant law

3

The right to claim for unfair dismissal was first introduced by the Industrial Relations Act 1971. Since then it has undergone a number of transformations and modifications and has been located in a number of different Acts of Parliament. The current law is contained in Part 10 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

4

Three features of the legislation as they bear upon this case have, until changes by the Employment Relations Act 1999, remained constant, although the precise statutory language has changed from time to time. First, the right to claim for unfair dismissal —and indeed for various other statutory rights too —has been excluded from those who, under their contract of employment, ordinarily work outside Great Britain. Second, there has always been a provision which specifically identifies how that test should be applied with respect to persons employed to work on board a ship registered in the UK. Third, there have, in addition, been a range of specific provisions dealing expressly with the position of persons working on board ships, so, for example, share fishermen (broadly, those who receive a profit from the enterprise rather than being paid a wage) have been largely excluded from unfair dismissal and other rights. Merchant seamen as a group have also been excluded from the scope of certain other statutory rights.

5

Before 1999 the relevant legislation was as follows. Section 196, which is headed Employment Outside Great Britain, provided in subsection (2) that:

“The provisions to which this subsection applies do not apply to employment where under the employee's contract of employment he ordinarily works outside Great Britain.”

Those provisions included the rights under Part 10, save for certain immaterial exceptions.

6

The application of that test does not apply, with respect, to those employed on board a ship registered in the UK by subsection (5), which was as follows:

“For the purposes of subsections (2) and (4), a person employed to work on board a ship registered in the United Kingdom shall be regarded as a person who under his contract ordinarily works in Great Britain unless —

(a) the ship is registered at a port outside Great Britain,

(b) the employment is wholly outside Great Britain, or

(c) the person is not ordinarily resident in Great Britain.”

7

Section 199 is headed “Mariners” and disapplies to varying extents particular rights from particular categories of seamen. Share fishermen are dealt with by Section 1992 and 3 respectively. Subsections (4) and (5) then deal expressly with the position of merchant seamen. That legislation was altered by Section 32 of the Employment Relations Act 1999. It repealed both Section 1962 and subsection (5). However, the substance of the latter provision was maintained by adding two subsections to Section 199. These are now subsections 199(7) and 8 respectively. Section 199(7) is as follows:

“The provisions mentioned in subsection (8) apply to employment on board a ship registered in the register maintained under section 8 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 if and only if —

(a) the ship's entry in the register specifies a port in Great Britain as the port to which the vessel is to be treated as belonging.

(b) under his contract of employment the person employed does not work wholly outside Great Britain, and

(c) the person employed is ordinarily resident in Great Britain.”

8

Subsection 8 identifies the relevant provisions and they include the right to claim for unfair dismissal under Part 10. It will be noted that the language of subsection (7) departs in certain respects from the old Section 1965 of the 1996 Act but in a way which materially alters its sense; in particular, the reference to the register maintained under Section 8 of the Merchant Shipping Act is to a register of ships in the United Kingdom. It is to be noted that jurisdiction can only be exercised, however, where the entry in the ship's register specifies a port in Great Britain; no doubt this is because there is a separate body of employment law relating to Northern Ireland and so ships registered there are dealt with by their own specific laws.

9

The question which then arose, following the repeal of Section 1962, was whether there was now any limitation at all on the jurisdiction of the tribunal to deal with somebody who had been unfairly dismissed. That matter was considered by the House of Lords in Lawson v Serco [2006] UKHL 3 [2006] ICR page 250. Their Lordships unanimously held that there was a limitation. Lord Hoffman, with whose speech Lord Woolf, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe and Baroness Hale of Richmond concurred, concluded that Parliament could not have intended that any employee employed anywhere in the world could take a claim for unfair dismissal before the British courts. He analysed the link which was necessary in order for the tribunal to exercise jurisdiction. He identified mariners as falling within the group of peripatetic employees and identified, as a relevant test for that group, whether their base was in the United Kingdom. I return to consider the details of that case later.

10

The case clearly establishes therefore that the mere fact that somebody is an employee who sometimes works outside the United Kingdom does not necessarily prevent him from claiming unfair dismissal if and when he is dismissed from employment; it depends whether he can establish the necessary link with the United Kingdom stipulated by the court in Serco. The question arising in this appeal is this: What is the relationship between the rules formulated by the House of Lords in Serco and the particular statutory provision in Section 199(7) dealing with the position of those working on British registered ships. Both parties accept that it is in principle no different to a relationship which formally existed between the general statutory exclusion for those ordinarily working abroad and the exception for those on British ships. Mr Meade, counsel for the company, submits that Section 199(7) is exhausted over the rights of those employed on ships. Either jurisdiction is afforded by that subsection or there is no jurisdiction to hear their claims. Accordingly, since the provision only applies to those working on ships registered in Great Britain, the tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with the claims for unfair dismissal brought by an employee working on any other ship, wherever it operates and even if it operates exclusively within the United Kingdom. We were shown statistics which demonstrate that there are a number of ships falling into that category.

11

Mr Adjei, counsel for Mr Diggins, contends that this analysis involves a fundamental misconstruction of Section 199(7). That section applies only to those who are employed on ships registered under Section 8 of the Merchant Shipping Act. For such employees a tribunal has jurisdiction if, but only if, the three conditions set out in the subsection are satisfied. However, if they are not so employed the tribunal will still have jurisdiction provided the employee can bring himself within the application of the Serco principles. The question is one of construction of Section 199(7).

12

In my judgment, simply as a matter of language, the argument of Mr Adjei must prevail. It is not the natural reading of subsection (7) to say that it is intended to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • R Fleet Maritime Services (Bermuda) Ltd v The Pensions Regulator
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 21 Diciembre 2015
    ...cases dealing with the implied territorial scope of section 94(1) of the 1996 Act were also relied on in argument. 33 In Diggins v Condor Marine Crewing Services Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 1133, [2010] ICR 213, the Court of Appeal confirmed that the principles identified in Lawson v Serco as appl......
  • Wallis v Ministry of Defence
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 8 Marzo 2011
    ...Simvoulio Radiotileorasis (Joined Cases C-145/08 and C-149/08); [2010] 3 CMLR 33, ECJDiggins v Condor Marine Crewing Services Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 1133; [2010] ICR 213, CAFinancial Times Ltd v Bishop UKEAT/147/03 (unreported), 25 November 2003, EATGibson v East Riding of Yorkshire Council [2......
  • Seahorse Maritime Ltd v Nautilus International
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 13 Diciembre 2018
    ...of the kind recognised in Ravat – was correct. In that connection we were referred to the decisions of the EAT in Diggins v Condor Marine Crewing Services Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 1133, [2010] ICR 213, and Windstar Management Services Ltd v Harris [2016] UKEAT 0001/16, [2016] ICR 847, which a......
  • Mr Horst Wittenberg v Sunset Personnel Services Ltd and Others
    • United Kingdom
    • Employment Appeal Tribunal
    • 21 Noviembre 2013
    ...shown in the cases of Dolphin Drilling Personnel PTE Ltd v Winks UKEATS/0049/08 and Diggins v Condor Marine Crewing Services Ltd [2010] ICR 213. In this case, he submitted that Mr McGimpsey was a US citizen working in Nigeria under a contract of employment with TCL which was itself governed......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • The Territorial Scope of Employment Legislation and Choice of Law
    • United Kingdom
    • The Modern Law Review No. 75-5, September 2012
    • 1 Septiembre 2012
    ...place and currency of payment of salary,and whether he pays national insurance contributions in Britain.21 See also Diggins vCondor [2009] EWCA Civ 1133; [2010] ICR 213 (s 94(1) applied to an officeron a ferry registered in the Bahamas plying from Portsmouth to the Channel Islands and Northe......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT