The Claimant was employed by the Respondent, a company resident in Guernsey, as the captain of a Cayman Islands-registered superyacht that was owned by a UK-resident individual. The Claimant's normal place of work was the yacht, and it was accepted by the Respondent that he was in the UK for around 50% of the time. When the Claimant was dismissed for alleged gross misconduct, he brought a claim for unfair dismissal, and the ET decided, at a preliminary hearing, that it had jurisdiction to hear the Claimant's claim. The Respondent appealed on a number of grounds relating to the ET's conclusion that it had jurisdiction under Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 ("Brussels Recast") to hear the claim, and the ET's conclusions as to territorial scope of the Employment Rights Act 1996 ("ERA").

The EAT held, in relation to the Brussels Recast jurisdiction, that the ET was correct, on the facts of the case, not to have found that the Claimant had no habitual place of work; further, there was no error of law in the ET's consideration of the territorial scope of the ERA in this case.