UK Tribunal Overrules CNN on Jurisdiction
Hello everyone and welcome back to another Case of the Week!
If you didn’t get a chance to check out last week’s update, no worries — you can find it here.
This time, we’re looking at an interesting question around UK jurisdiction: Was a journalist working for a U.S. company actually employed in the UK? Let’s find out.
What happens when a globe-trotting journalist, employed by a U.S. media giant, lands back in London—and then gets fired on home turf? This week’s case looks into the legal tug-of-war over where employment rights actually begin and end.
Ms. Saima Bhatti, a British journalist of Pakistani heritage, brought an employment tribunal claim against CNN (Cable News International Inc.), a U.S.-based news network. She alleged a long list of statutory breaches—discrimination (race, disability, and sex), victimisation, unfair dismissal, unequal pay, and unpaid holiday. Serious stuff.
Now, here’s the twist: Ms. Bhatti’s contract was governed by Georgia law (as in the U.S. state), and she spent much of her time reporting across Asia. But in March 2017, after sustaining a foot injury whilst at work and needing medical treatment, she returned to London and sought to be based there in the foreseeable future. CNN wasn’t on board. They restricted her assignments and by August 2017 dismissed her from their London office.
So, could she bring her claim in the UK?
The Employment Tribunal said yes—but only from March 2017 onwards, when her life and work clearly shifted back to the UK. CNN wasn’t thrilled and appealed, arguing the Tribunal had no business getting involved given her overseas contract and work history.
But the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) backed the original decision. The judge pointed out that Ms. Bhatti had clearly re-rooted her working life in London, and that CNN’s local operations were sufficiently involved in the events leading up to her dismissal to bring the case within UK Jurisdiction. In essence, while her employment was once centred in Asia, it had, by March 2017, meaningfully relocated to the UK.
Takeaway Points
While it is important to consider contractual agreements between the parties when considering certain issues, such as jurisdiction, a contract is meant to reflect the reality of the situation, rather than reality reflecting the contract.
Where a contract best suited to be determined under UK employment law purports itself to be governed by another country’s laws, the Employment Tribunal has the ability to make findings of fact about the reality of the situation.
