By its judgment (challenged on appeal) the ET held that there was no jurisdiction to hear any of the Claimant's claims against the Respondents other than the FCO and all other claims were struck out. The main conclusions leading to that decision were in summary:

(i) EULEX, a multinational Rule of Law mission, established by an EU Council Decision under the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the EU (the Council Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP, "the Joint Action"), has no domestic legal personality and it was unnecessary to impute such a personality to it in order to give effect to EU law;

(ii) Even if EULEX has domestic legal personality, the Employment Tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction over acts done by EULEX or the Head of Mission. In common with other contributing countries, the FCO has no control over or relationship with EULEX, though it sends staff on secondment to EULEX;

(iii) The Employment Tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction in respect of the unlawful detriment claims against two people both seconded by the FCO to work for EULEX. The Tribunal left open the question whether the FCO could be vicariously liable for their acts or omissions in Kosovo done in the course of their employment by the FCO;

(iv) Neither EULEX nor its Head of Mission acted as agents of the FCO so as to make themselves liable under s. 47B(1A) ERA, or the FCO vicariously liable for their acts or omissions in Kosovo. Although the FCO contributed to the EULEX mission, it worked for the EEAS and not for the FCO at all. The Head of Mission had no role in relation to the FCO, and if he was agent for any country, it would have been Italy;

(v) Neither Article 6 or 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights give an extended right to a "European" remedy in Kosovo. Further, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights cannot assist as there is no EU right to enforce in this case.

The EAT dismissed all but one grounds of appeal. The appeal was upheld in relation to extraterritorial jurisdiction. There was an exceptionally strong connection between them and Great Britain and British employment law, and that was the only conclusion available so that claims against them should not have been struck out.