By Rachel Ellis Partner & Regional ER Manager &
Sanjana Hossain Employment Rights Lawyer
Background
This case involves Ms Saima Bhatti, a British broadcast journalist of Pakistani heritage, who brought claims against her former employer, Cable News International Inc (CNN), based in Atlanta, Georgia. Ms Bhatti worked internationally, primarily in Asia, under contracts governed by Georgia law. From March 2017, she relocated to London while recovering from a long-standing foot injury. She was dismissed in August 2017 at CNN’s London bureau, leading to claims for discrimination, unfair dismissal, and other employment-related complaints.
A key issue was whether the UK Employment Tribunal had jurisdiction over claims involving a US-based employer, especially given Ms Bhatti’s international work history and the US-governed contract.
Key Issues
- Territorial Scope and Jurisdiction
The Employment Tribunal originally held that only events from 1 March 2017 onwards had jurisdiction to be heard in Great Britain, due to Ms Bhatti’s relocation to London and her increasing connection with the UK. CNN appealed, arguing the claims did not fall within the jurisdiction of UK tribunals.
- Peripatetic vs Expatriate Status
CNN argued Ms Bhatti was an expatriate worker with no real link to the UK, while the tribunal characterised her as a peripatetic worker with dual bases in Bangkok and London. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld this view, noting Ms Bhatti’s increasing presence and activities in London from March 2017 onward. - Evolving Work Base
The EAT accepted that an employee’s base can shift over time. It found that from March 2017, London became Ms Bhatti’s work base due to her efforts to re-establish herself there, despite being on medical leave. - International Jurisdiction and Brussels Regulation
The EAT confirmed that the UK tribunal had jurisdiction under domestic law and, if necessary, under the Brussels Regulation (then applicable). It found that CNN’s London bureau constituted a branch from which the dispute arose, meeting jurisdictional thresholds. - Service of Proceedings
CNN argued it had not been properly served. The EAT rejected this, finding that service via the London bureau was effective and brought the claim to CNN’s attention.
EAT Decision
The EAT dismissed CNN’s appeal. It found that Ms Bhatti’s employment had a sufficiently strong connection to Great Britain from March 2017 onwards. The claims were within the UK tribunal’s jurisdiction, both under domestic principles and the Brussels Regulation. The case was allowed to proceed on its merits.
Significance
This decision reinforces that peripatetic employees —especially those working internationally—can bring claims in UK tribunals where their employment relationship evolves to show a strong UK connection. The issue is not about whether an employee is peripatetic or expatriate because a peripatetic employee may also be fully expatriate. It is about establishing sufficient connection to the UK in relation to the work undertaken by the employee. For trade union reps, this underscores the importance of looking at the full factual picture when advising members with international roles. The ruling also affirms that service of claim form to UK branches of foreign employers may be sufficient as long as they are properly made aware of the claim and that jurisdictional defences must be carefully scrutinised.
Outcome
CNN’s appeal was dismissed. Ms Bhatti’s claims, insofar as they related to events from March 2017 onward, will proceed in the Employment Tribunal in London.
