Mrs K Bradley v BAE Systems plc and BAE Systems Strategic Aerospace WLL: 2208689/2022
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 31 August 2023 |
| Date | 31 August 2023 |
| Citation | 2208689/2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 26 September 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Public Interest Disclosure |
Case Numbers: 2208689/2022
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: And Respondents:
Mrs K Bradley 1. BAE Systems PLC
2. BAE Systems Strategic
Aerospace WLL
OPEN PRELIMINARY HEARING
On: 8-9 June and with legal submissions made on 5 July 2023
Before: Employment Judge Nicolle
By: CVP
Representation:
Claimant: Mr C Milsom, of Counsel
Respondents: Mr J Crozier, of Counsel
JUDGMENT
1. The Tribunal concludes that it does not have jurisdiction to hear the various
claims pursued by the claimant on the basis that it finds her employment was not
with the First Respondent and she was at all times of her employment an
employee of the Second Respondent. Further, that she has not satisfied the
burden of demonstrating that her employment had a sufficiently close connection
with the UK for UK territorial statutory jurisdiction to apply.
The Hearing
2. The hearing took place via CVP, there were no issues of connectivity and
the parties could see and hear what the Tribunal saw and heard.
3. The main bundle of documents comprised of 354 pages. However, there
was an additional bundle of documents prepared by the Claimant comprising of
439 pages (the Disputed Documents).
Case Numbers: 2208689/2022
2
4. The Claimant gave evidence and Andrew Forsyth, Senior Counsel
employed by BAE Systems, QFC Branch in Qatar (Mr Forsyth) and Matthew
Foster, Business Development and Strategy Director for FalconWorks, employed
by BAE Systems PLC (Mr Foster) gave evidence on behalf of the Respondents.
5. Aidan Beech (Mr Beech) gave evidence pursuant to a witness order
obtained by the Claimant. He had been employed as Operations Manager in
Qatar by BAE Ops. He is now working in the UK for BAE Systems Submarines.
The issues to be determined
6. At a case management hearing before Employment Judge Bartlett on 17
March 2023 it was directed that an OPH should be heard to determine the
following questions:
(a) Who is the correct Respondent?
(b) Does the Tribunal have territorial jurisdiction over the claims brought by
the Claimant?
7. Whilst the fact, nature and dates of various alleged protected disclosures
made by the Claimant were referred to during the hearing I was asked not to
make any findings on the substantive issues pertaining to such purported
disclosures. They are only referred to the extent to which they are potentially
relevant in the context of the question of territorial jurisdiction.
Findings of Fact
The Claimant
8. The Claimant is a British national. She has worked overseas, initially in
Australia and since 1 February 2014 in Qatar. Immediately prior to her
recruitment by the Respondents she worked for Defense Conseil International, a
French company, also in Qatar.
The Respondents
9. There was significant evidence given regarding the Respondents’ corporate
group structure. The Claimant’s position is that notwithstanding what may
appear from strict lines of corporate demarcation that the reality of her
employment was that it was ultimately controlled by the First Respondent. The
Respondents’ position is that the Claimant was solely and exclusively employed
by a Branch Office of BAE Ops called BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd – Qatar
Branch (the Branch Office).
10. The First Respondent is a publicly listed company in the UK and the parent
company of the wider BAE Systems Group (the Group). The Group is a
multinational defence and security company, delivering a full range of products
and services for air, land, and naval forces, along with advanced electronics, IT
and customer support services.
To continue reading
Request your trial