The Claimant, an Egyptian national, was employed by the First Respondent. Following her dismissal, she brought proceedings in the ET for unlawful dismissal, racial discrimination, victimisation and detriment resulting from a protected disclosure. As a preliminary issue, the ET determined that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the Claimant's claims because her employment was not sufficiently closely connected to the United Kingdom. The Claimant appealed on the grounds that the ET had erred in law when determining whether it had jurisdiction and that it failed to apply or properly apply the test or principles set out in the case law, and that the ET's decision that the embassy was not a British enclave and/or that the connection of her employment relationship with Great Britain and British employment law was not stronger than it was with any other system of law were irrational and perverse.

The EAT held that the ET approached the "sufficient connection question" in the appropriate way and gave the correct answer to it. Further, the ET's decision that the connection of the Claimant's employment relationship with Great Britain and British employment law was not stronger than it was with any other system of law was neither irrational nor perverse.