Appeal No. EAT/411/90

	EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
	4 ST. JAMES'S SQUARE, LONDON, SW1 4JU

		At the Tribunal
		On 29 July 1991

	Before

	THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WOOD MC (P)

	MR J C RAMSAY

	MR S M SPRINGER MBE

J P HIPPERSON	APPELLANT

BARCLAYS BANK PLC	RESPONDENTS

	Transcript of Proceedings

	JUDGMENT

	PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	J P HIPPERSON
	(IN PERSON)

	

	MR JUSTICE WOOD (PRESIDENT):  This is an Appeal by way of a Preliminary Hearing by Mr Hipperson, from a Decision of an Industrial Tribunal sitting in London (South) on Friday 8th June 1990.

	He alleged unfair dismissal against his employers Barclays Bank plc.  He was represented by Mr Lynch and the Bank were represented by Counsel before the Tribunal.

	This history is admirably set out in the findings of the Tribunal from paragraph 4 onwards.  The issue before the Tribunal was whether it had jurisdiction to hear the allegation of unfair dismissal because of the provisions of sub-section 2, of Section 141 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 and that reads, and I am quoting:
"Sections 8 and 53 and Parts II, III [and V] do not apply to employment where under his contract of employment the employee ordinarily works outside Great Britain."

The claim is under Part V, and therefore the issue was:  was Mr Hipperson at the time he was dismissed, and that was in January 1990, was he ordinarily working outside Great Britain?  It is a statutory jurisdiction, and unless the Tribunal are satisfied that that was not so they have no power to hear the claim of unfair dismissal under the provisions of the 1978 Act.

	The history, and we take it very shortly because it is set out in the Decision, was that the Applicant joined the Bank in 1961, when he was still in his teens;  there came a time some 14 years later, when the Bank wanted someone to help in Zambia and the Applicant, Mr Hipperson, accepted a temporary posting for two years.  It started in February 1975, and there came a time when he wished to be permanently employed overseas.  He was offered a permanent appointment in November 1987 and accepted that.  He resigned from Barclays Bank Limited and joined Barclays Bank International.  That started from the 1st January 1978, that is the formal start.  From that time onwards Mr Hipperson has always worked overseas.  He was always governed by terms which related to his being overseas for the purposes of his work.  Some documentation was looked at;  some evidence was called, and indeed the Tribunal state that according to his own evidence since 1975 there has never been a time when he has done any actual work in this country for Barclays Bank.

	In 1985 Barclays Bank Limited merged with Barclays Bank International but the old "International" became a separate overseas department.  

	In 1986 Mr Hipperson was looking for promotion and he moved from Zambia to the United Arab Emirates.  He became Manager of a sub-branch at Sharjah, and ultimately Manager in Dubai.  The Manager's task in Dubai was to supervise two sub-branches, so he was really in charge of three branches;  there were some expatriates in the Bank and he was the one in charge.

	In 1989 it was alleged that he had committed disciplinary offences in relation to his employment and in the September of 1989 he was sent back to England;  disciplinary proceedings were conducted in this country by the Overseas Personnel Department.  Later the Regional Manager for Asia took overall charge and Mr Hipperson was dismissed with effect from 28th January 1990.

	The point taken by Mr Hipperson was that although the documentation of his earlier employments, and indeed some documentation relating to his period in Dubai, was produced to the Industrial Tribunal, his actual Contract of Employment was not produced;  it was lost.  He tells us today that he signed one contract in Arabic, which was required by the UAE Authorities, he does not know what it said because it was in Arabic, but he signed it.  However, he also signed a Contract of Employment in English, and it is this one which is missing.

	He tells us, as he says he told the Industrial Tribunal, that in that Contract which is missing, there was a clause which said that the Respondent shall be subject to jurisdiction of the United Kingdom Courts, notwithstanding past, present or future legislation, and he therefore wishes his case to be heard because he submits that that governs the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunals.

	Unfortunately, it is abundantly clear that the Industrial Tribunals only have a statutory jurisdiction and that the Statute requirements, through the provisions of Section 141(2) that Mr Hipperson should not have been ordinarily working outside Great Britain at the time of his dismissal.  The Tribunal found - indeed the evidence was clear and virtually unchallenged -  that that was so.

	In the circumstances, therefore, we are unable to detect any error of law in the Decision of this Industrial Tribunal and the Appeal must be dismissed at this stage.

	We told Mr Hipperson that if he wishes to take further advice on any possible action which he may allege of wrongful dismissal, or any other course of action, that is a matter for him.  But we are unable to help in this jurisdiction in the circumstances of his case.