![does whistle phone work abroad does whistle phone work abroad](https://londonweed.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/cropped-ukweed-150x150.jpg)
In any case, the question is whether Parliament intended that the employment would be governed by British employment law, notwithstanding that the place of employment was overseas. The extraterritorial jurisdiction of the ET has been the subject of repeated appellate consideration, starting with the seminal judgment of Lord Hoffmann in Lawson v Serco ICR 250 and in a number of cases thereafter, most recently British Council v Jeffery IRLR 123. One of the questions which arose for the tribunal was whether it had jurisdiction given that all the relevant events took place overseas. In this case Ms Bamieh alleged that she had been subjected to detriments by co-workers while working as a secondee of the FCO to an international “rule of law” mission in Kosovo. The importance of such claims was highlighted by the decision of the Court of Appeal in Timis v Osipov IRLR 52 that individuals could be jointly and severally liable with employers. Although its principal aim may have been to ensure the vicarious liability of the employer for acts of co-workers, it enables free-standing claims to be brought in addition to or instead of claims against employers. The introduction of co-worker liability for whistle blowing detriment was brought about by section 47B(1A) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in order to fill the lacuna identified in Fecitt v NHS Manchester ICR 372. Spencer Keen and Rosalie Snocken appeared for the successful co-workers. In Foreign and Commonwealth Office and others v Bamieh EWCA Civ 803 the Court of Appeal considered for the first time the question of the territorial jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunal in relation to whistle blowing claims against co-workers.īen Collins QC and Penelope Nevill appeared for the successful FCO. Territorial jurisdiction in whistle blowing claims brought against co-workers News