Prahl, Hofvenstam and Ågeback v Lapinski

Prahl, Hofvenstam & Ågeback v Lapinski [2025] EAT 77

Facts

The claimant, Sebastian Lapinski, brought complaints under the Equality Act 2010 against seven respondents, including Triton Investment Advisers LLP (the LLP), of which he was formerly a member, and three individual respondents, Mr Prähl, Mr Hofvenstam, and Mr Agebäck (referred to as "the Swedish respondents"). The Swedish respondents are all non-UK-domiciled individuals, domiciled in Sweden.

The claimant was employed by a Swedish company in the Triton Group from 2015, then relocated to the UK in 2020 and became a member of the LLP. He was diagnosed with epilepsy in August 2021. In August 2022, the employment tribunal claim was instituted, and the notice of claim and claim form were sent by the tribunal to the Swedish respondents' usual business address in Stockholm, Sweden, which they do not dispute receiving.

The Swedish respondents (appellants in this appeal) asserted that the employment tribunal lacked "international jurisdiction" over them as a matter of private international law. Their arguments included that they were Swedish nationals domiciled in Sweden, were not present in the UK when the claim was issued or served, and the claim was not served personally on them in the UK or sent to a UK address. They also argued they had not submitted to the tribunal's jurisdiction.

The legal context for the appeal is significant because the Brussels Recast Regulation (EU No 1215/2012) ceased to be applicable on 31 December 2020 due to Brexit, and amended provisions of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 came into force. The Employment Tribunal at London Central (Employment Judge Adkin) had previously held that it did have jurisdiction over the Swedish respondents, leading to this appeal.

Held

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), presided over by His Honour Judge Auerbach, upheld the tribunal's judgment and dismissed the appeal.

Key determinations were:

• Service of Claim - The tribunal was not wrong to conclude that the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 were complied with regarding sending the notice of claim to the appellants. The EAT explicitly agreed that the employment tribunal's own rules provide a complete code for service, and there is no requirement for permission to serve outside the UK on a respondent domiciled abroad for an employment tribunal claim. The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) do not apply to service in employment tribunal claims.

• International Jurisdiction (Post-Brexit)

  • The EAT concluded that, in a post-31 December 2020 case where the Brussels Recast Regulation does not apply, there is no "positive need, in every case, for some other rule to be identified, and satisfied, conferring international jurisdiction, distinct from the rule which confers territorial jurisdiction". Domestic statutes which have territorial application to a claim "do themselves confer international jurisdiction," unless that jurisdiction is displaced by primary legislation or other principles of private international law with equal force.

  • The amended provisions of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (specifically section 15C) are intended to preserve the protection for employees that existed under the Brussels Recast Regulation. The purpose of section 15C is to ensure that employment tribunal claimants are "no worse off" as a result of the Brussels Recast Regulation ceasing to apply.

  • Interpretation of "Employer" and "Employee" under Section 15C: The EAT found that section 15C does not deprive the claimant of the right to pursue claims against the appellants, even though he was an LLP member (not an "employee" in the narrow domestic law sense) and they were not his direct "employer". In determining the meaning of "employer" and "employee" under section 15C, regard must be had to principles laid down by the European Court in connection with the Brussels Recast Regulation, meaning these are to be understood as broad "European concepts". This allows for a focus on the "substance of the relationship rather than the legal structure", consistent with protecting the "weaker party" and avoiding multiplicity of proceedings. Section 110 of the Equality Act 2010 provides for individual co-liability of employees and agents, supporting the claimant's position.

• Rule 8 of the 2013 Rules: The EAT clarified that Rule 8 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 does not confer jurisdiction. Instead, it functions to indicate where a claim may be presented (England & Wales or Scotland) in cases where territorial jurisdiction already exists. The tribunal did not rely on it as a source of jurisdiction.

Comment

This judgment provides critical clarity on employment tribunal jurisdiction in the post-Brexit era, particularly concerning claims with an international element and non-UK-domiciled respondents. It significantly reinforces the principle that for statutory employment rights claims, territorial jurisdiction (sufficient connection with Great Britain under Lawson v Serco principles) is generally sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Employment Tribunal. The judgment states there is no general "positive need" for a distinct rule of international jurisdiction beyond territorial scope, unless specifically displaced by other primary legislation or principles of private international law with equal force. This approach seems to favour Lord Hoffmann's simpler formulation of jurisdiction over Professor Merrett's earlier distinction.

Crucially, the decision confirms the preservative intent of the post-Brexit amendments to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982. These amendments, particularly section 15C, are designed to ensure that UK employees are not disadvantaged in pursuing claims against non-UK-domiciled parties compared to the pre-Brexit regime. This includes maintaining the flexibility to sue multiple respondents to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

Furthermore, the judgment offers an expansive and protective interpretation of "employer" and "employee" within the context of international jurisdiction rules, aligning with "European concepts" that prioritize the substance of the relationship and the protection of the weaker party. This broad interpretation allows for claims against individuals who might not be considered direct employers under strict domestic law, such as co-liable agents or members of an LLP, provided the claim "relates to" a contract of employment.

Finally, the ruling solidifies that Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure offer a complete code for service, eliminating any requirement for employees to seek permission for service outside the UK from the High Court, as would be the case in civil court proceedings. This simplifies the process for employees and avoids additional procedural hurdles.