The claimant was engaged by the appellant to work on a super-yacht. The yacht did not enter a UK port or UK waters at any time during her employment. Following her dismissal by reason of redundancy, the claimant brought claims under the Employment Rights Act, 1996 (“ERA”) and the Equality Act, 2010 (“EqA”). The appellant disputed the application of those statutes to the claimant’s employment. A preliminary hearing was fixed on that issue. No witness evidence was led, but parties invited the Employment Tribunal to determine the issue of territorial jurisdiction on the basis of an agreed statement of facts. The Tribunal was also provided with a copy of the claimant’s contract of employment. The agreed statement contained an agreed fact that the claimant’s “tours of duty” on the yacht all began and ended outside Great Britain. The Employment Judge nevertheless concluded that the claimant’s duties under the contract began and ended at her home in Aberdeen, which was her “base” and that she was entitled to rely upon both the ERA and the EqA. The appellant contended that it was not open to the Tribunal to find that the claimants duties began in Aberdeen having regard to the agreed fact that her “tours of duty” on the yacht all began and ended outside Great Britain. It further contended that there was no evidence to entitle the Tribunal to conclude that her “base” was in Aberdeen, and that the Tribunal had erred in regarding itself as being bound by Windstar Management Services Limited v. Harris [2016] ICR 847 and in not applying R (on the application of Fleet Maritime Services (Bermuda) Ltd v Pensions Regulator [2016] IRLR 199.

Held:

(1) On a proper construction of the agreed statement of facts, the expression “tours of duty” was not synonymous with “duties under the contract” and the Tribunal had been entitled to find that the claimant’s duties began and ended at her home;

(2) The Tribunal had correctly applied Lawson v. Serco [2006] ICR 250 Ravat v. Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Limited [2012] ICR 389, and Windstar and was entitled, on the agreed facts, to find that the claimant’s “base” was her home; and

(3) the Tribunal had not erred in applying the ratio of Windstar. A “base” did not require it to be a port. Nothing in the decision in Fleet Maritime Services was inconsistent with that principle, or with the conclusion reached by the Tribunal on the facts of this case.

[Summary reproduced from the judgment]