The Claimant’s claim was for breach of contract and the preliminary hearing was to consider whether the ET had territorial jurisdiction to hear the claim. The EJ decided to stay, effectively, a decision as to the territorial reach of the Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994. The reason was that a decision was better decided by a court, the Claimant having reserved the right to pursue a contractual claim before the courts for amounts over and above the statutory limit. The Claimant appealed, arguing that the judge should have reached a conclusion on the claim.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. The courts have specific procedural steps for service of proceedings outside the jurisdiction which are not replicated in the 2013 rules. The differences may impact on whether the employment tribunal has jurisdiction to hear such claims under the 1994 Order, but that is decision for another case. The EJ made a case management decision within the definition in rule 1(3) of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013. The threshold that the decision was certainly wrong in order for an appeal to succeed was not crossed. The Judge’s decision, when examined considering the approach set out in Lycatel Services Ltd v Robin Schneider [2023] EAT 81, was well within the scope of his discretion to make a case management order staying proceedings.