Mr M Montaser v Elekta Ltd and Others: 2308959/2024

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 2308959/2024

Between

Mr M MontaserClaimant

Elekta Ltd and OthersRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Tsamados

Ms R Snocken (instructed by Counsel) for respondent

Date 25 July 2025

JUDGMENT

The Employment Tribunal does not have territorial jurisdiction to hear the claim and so it is dismissed. Approved by:

REASONS

These reasons are provided at the request of the Claimant. Oral reasons were given on the day and in as far as these reasons add background to the claim, are more formally worded and set out the relevant law, they do not materially differ.

Background

[1]By a claim form presented to the Employment Tribunal on 21 October 2024, following a period of Acas early conciliation between 20 and 24 September 2024, the Claimant brought complaints of unfair dismissal, race and age discrimination.

[2]The claim was originally brought against four Respondents: the first Respondent, Elekta Ltd, who the Claimant said employed him and also against Mr Ian Stoker and Ms Sasha Bettinson who were employed by the first Respondent. Mr Mauritis Wolleswinkle was a further Respondent but the Claimant subsequently withdrew his claim against that person.

[3]In a response entered for all of the Respondents, their primary defence was that the first Respondent did not employ the Claimant and further that the Employment Tribunal does not have the territorial jurisdiction to hear the claim.

[4]By letter dated 17 December 2024, the Tribunal wrote to the parties on the instruction of Employment Judge (“EJ”) Siddall, advising that a preliminary hearing will be listed to decide whether the Employment Tribunal has territorial jurisdiction to hear the claim, as the Claimant appears to be based in Egypt. Page 1 of 9

[5]The letter also stated that if any witness wished to give evidence by video from Egypt, then they will have to show that the relevant consent has been obtained from the Egyptian authorities.

[6]On 24 December 2024, the Tribunal wrote to the parties giving notice of a public preliminary hearing to be held by video on 29 April 2025. The notice indicated that the hearing would determine the matter set out in the letter dated 17 December and also repeated the need for any witnesses who wish to give evidence from Egypt to show that the relevant consent has been obtained.

[7]By email dated 8 April 2025, the Claimant wrote to the Tribunal stating that he was withdrawing his claim against Mr Mauritis Wolleswinkle.

[8]By letter dated 22 April 2025, the Tribunal wrote to the parties stating that the withdrawal of the claim against Mr Wolleswinkle would be discussed at the forthcoming preliminary hearing and also reminded the Claimant that if he is based outside the UK, he would require permission from the Foreign and Commonwealth Development Office to take part in the hearing. This email does not appear to have been copied to the Respondents.

[9]By email dated 23 April 2025, the Claimant wrote to the Tribunal stating that he did not appreciate that he required permission to give evidence and thought this only applied to witnesses. As a result, he said he had not obtained such permission and was shocked to learn that he may lose his case if he cannot take part in the hearing and because he is unrepresented. He asked for more time to obtain the necessary permission. This email does not appear to have been copied to the respondents. The Claimant appears to have misunderstood the previous letters sent by the Tribunal in this regard.

[10]By a further email dated 28 April 2025, the Claimant again wrote to the Tribunal asking to postpone the hearing by one week so as to obtain representation within the UK or to travel to a third country from which he does not require permission or to provide written submissions. This letters to further misunderstand that permission is only required for those giving evidence to the Tribunal from overseas.

[11]The preliminary hearing took place on 29 April 2025 and was conducted by Employment Judge O’Neill. It was not possible to proceed with the public hearing because the Claimant joined the hearing from Egypt and had not obtained the necessary permission of the government of that country to give evidence. In addition, he required the services of an Arabic interpreter (although his brother attended with him to act as a casual interpreter).

[12]EJ O’Neill converted the hearing to a private hearing dealing with case management and re-listed the public hearing for 25 July 2025 to determine the jurisdictional issues and he also set case management orders for preparation for that hearing. The Judge also made arrangements for an Arabic interpreter to be available at the forthcoming hearing and directed the Claimant to the relevant guidance as to obtaining permission to provide evidence from abroad. Page 2 of 9

[13]EJ O’Neill also issued a separate judgment dismissing the claim against Mr Wolleswinkle.

[14]The Claimant subsequently wrote clarifying that he was bringing claims of race and age victimisation and harassment.

Preliminary matters

[15]Shortly before today’s hearing, the Claimant made an application to postpone the hearing but this was refused. In addition, he also applied for the respondents’ response to be struck out. He also applied for today’s hearing to be converted from an in-person hearing to a video hearing. As far as I am aware it was already listed as a video hearing.

[16]The application to strike out was made on the basis that the Respondents had not complied with the Case Management Orders set by EJ O’Neill with regard to disclosure, agreement of the contents of the hearing bundle and exchange of witness statements. The application is set out over four pages and then attached to it is what appears to be the same document that I was given a copy of today, headed ”2-Disclosure”, consisting of six pages, plus accompanying email correspondence.

[17]The Claimant appears to have renewed this application by email dated 4 June 2025 but only in respect of the Respondent’s alleged failure to comply with disclosure.

[18]In an email of even date, the Respondents wrote to the Tribunal objecting to the Claimant’s application for strike out and averred that it had fully complied with its obligation to disclose documents.

[19]The document 2-Disclosure is a schedule setting out a description of each document sought by the Claimant, the Respondents’ position with regard to each and the Claimant’s response to each reply.

[20]Having considered the Claimant’s application and the Respondents’ reply, oral submissions and the 2-Disclsoure schedule, I refused the application. I gave the following reasons. The Respondents indicated that either the documents requested do not exist, they are not within their possession or control or they are not relevant to the issues before me. I accept this. A strike out is a draconian step and has to be considered in the context of the Tribunal’s overriding objective. I agree with Ms Snocken that it is proportionate to continue with the hearing and that if it becomes apparent that there is a need to refer to a particular document that the Claimant has referred to in the schedule, then I can consider the relevance of that document in the full context of the evidence.

The issues

[21]Today’s hearing is to determine whether the Employment Tribunal has territorial jurisdiction to hear the Claimant’s complaints of race and age discrimination and victimisation. Whilst there is a reference within the record of the previous Page 3 of 9 preliminary hearing to the Claimant bringing a complaint of unfair dismissal that is not the case.

[22]The claim is brought against Elekta Ltd, a UK registered company and two individual Respondents.

[23]The issues to be determined are set out at paragraph 49 of the record of that preliminary hearing at B73. Namely,a. Did the Claimant work and live wholly in Egypt during the period June 2021 to July 2024?

b. Was the Claimant employed by Elekta Egypt LLC (an entity registered in Egypt whose principal place of business is at an address in New Cairo, Egypt)?

c. If so, did the Claimant’s employment relationship have much stronger connections with both Great Britain and British employment law than with any other system of law, particularly the laws of Egypt and Sweden?

d. If a sufficiently strong connection can be established, does the Claimant have jurisdiction and claims in respect of the: i. first Respondent ii. second Respondent; and iii. third Respondent?

[24]I made it clear that these are the issues for me to determine and that I would not be departing from them unless there were exceptional reasons to do so. Documents

[25]The Respondents provided me with the following documents: a bundle consisting of 446 pages, which I will refer to as “B” followed by the relevant page number; a witness statement for Ms Bryony Drew: a skeleton argument with supporting case authorities; and a cast list, chronology and reading list, although these had not been agreed with the Claimant.

[26]The Claimant provided me with a witness statement and a document entitled “2- Disclosure”.

[27]I made it clear that I was not going to read all of the documents within the bundle but only those to which I had been referred. A number of the documents (for example at B92-95) are in Arabic and no English translation has been provided and so I stated that I simply could not consider those documents. Page 4 of 9

Evidence

[28]I heard evidence from Ms Drew on behalf of the Respondents by way of a written statement and in answer to oral questions.

[29]Whilst I had a witness statement from the Claimant, he attended the hearing from Egypt, without having obtained the appropriate authority and so was not able to give evidence. As a result, I was only able to consider his witness statement to which I applied the appropriate weight given that he was not able to give evidence or to answer questions. This essentially meant that where matters were clearly in dispute, his witness statement carried little weight if any.

[30]The Tribunal had the services of an Arabic interpreter, Ms E Fargallah. She was able to assist the Claimant where required, although the Claimant was not giving evidence, was represented by his brother, who was also in Egypt, and able to communicate in Arabic with him. As a result Ms Fagallah’s involvement was somewhat limited. Findings 1. I decided all the findings referred to below on the balance of probability, having considered all of the evidence given by the witnesses during the hearing, together with documents referred to by them. Any failure to mention any specific part of the evidence should not be taken as an indication that I failed to consider it. 2. I have only made those findings of fact necessary to determine the issues. It has not been necessary to determine every fact in dispute where it is not relevant to the issues between the parties.

Findings

[31]It was not appropriate for me to make any findings relating to the substantive matters that the Claimant relies upon in respect of his actual claims. My focus was on matters relevant to the territorial issue.

[32]The Claimant worked as an engineer for the Elekta Group from June 2021 to July 2024.

[33]The Elekta Group is a global Swedish corporation that makes precision radiation therapy equipment for use in cancer care. In 2021, the Group opened a permanent base in Cairo, in Egypt. I was referred to B346 which lists the average number of employees over a number of years at both the parent company and various global subsidiaries worldwide.

[34]There is no dispute between the parties that the Claimant lived and worked in Egypt throughout the period of his employment or that he was employed by Elekta Egypt LLC. This is a corporate entity registered in Egypt whose principal place of business is at an address in New Cairo, in Egypt. Thus it is accepted that the Claimant was not employed by the first Respondent. Page 5 of 9

[35]Indeed, I was referred to the Claimant’s contract of employment at B73-85. This is in both English and Arabic. It clearly indicates that the applicable law and jurisdiction is Egyptian law, it also confirms that Elekta Egypt LLC is a company registered in New Cairo, having its principal place of business in Egypt. It confirms that the Claimant holds Egyptian nationality. It also sets out the area in which the Claimant was required to work in the Arab Republic of Egypt. It explicitly states that termination is governed by Egyptian labour laws. Remuneration is expressed by reference to EGP (Egyptian Pounds). There are a number other clauses which quite clearly relate purely to Egypt, for example, relating to holidays.

[36]Elekta Egypt LLC is part of the same group of companies as the first Respondent but is an entirely separate entity. It is not located or registered in the UK and neither are the parent companies which are Swedish corporate entities.

[37]The second and third Respondents were at the material times employed by the Respondent, working within the HR function, which is known as People Operations. At B408 there is an email to all employees setting out the functions carried out by People Operations, including those of the second and third Respondents. This formed the basis of their duties across the entire group of companies. I note in particular that there is no reference to any particular laws of a particular country and indeed if anything the range of duties are generic ones applying to HR professionals.

[38]This is also the evidence from Ms Drew. That People Operations were carried out for Elekta Global internationally, although the second and third Respondents were both based at the office premises in Crawley in England. Both of them have since left the first Respondent’s employment. Ms Drew is Lead Local Partner in People Operations in the UK, working with UK colleagues and they carry out functions in different regions. The two individual Respondents dealt with what are referred to as “escalated cases” within the UK and from other regions for those working for other Elekta entities. Escalated cases included grievances, disciplinaries and appeals, applying local labour laws. In particular, in the case of someone employed and living in Egypt, by reference to the Egyptian labour laws. It seems clear from the evidence before me that People Operations were carried out within various local locations and were escalated up to other locations in other countries and that this included UK People Operations.

[39]There is evidence in the bundle that the Claimant has brought legal proceedings in Egypt against his former employer relating to the termination of his employment. I was referred to B86 and 87-90. It is unclear exactly what sort of claim this was. It appears to rely partly on whether the period of employment the Claimant held previously with a company called Horizon in Egypt, which was taken over perhaps in a manner akin to a transfer of undertaking in this country, was continuous. However, this purely goes to the length of the Claimant’s employment and is not relevant to the matter before me. The Claimant said in submissions that whilst he had brought a claim in Egypt this was akin to an unfair dismissal claim and that the discrimination/victimisation protections in the UK did not exist there. In as far as this amounted to evidence, which the Claimant was not allowed to give and was not supported by anything else, I had no basis on Page 6 of 9 which to accept this given that it was uncorroborated and so was a pure assertion.

[40]The Claimant also gave evidence within his witness statement as to a number of applications for work which he had made to Elekta Group. However, only one of them was made to the first Respondent and that post-dated the claim that is before me. It was therefore not evidence that was relevant to the issue that I have to determine.

[41]The Claimant also referred to training which he undertook in England at B101. This is one of a number of certificates of completion (of training) between B100 and B105. However, it is the only one which took place in England and it is from 2005. Several of the others involved training undertaken in Beijing.

[42]The Claimant relied upon the People and Human Rights Policy at B201 and the Code of Conduct at B206. However, these are Elekta Global policies and do not apply solely to the UK. Submissions

[43]Both representatives submitted written submissions, although the Claimant’s was entitled “Position Statement”. I also heard oral submissions from both parties.

[44]I have taken the submissions of both parties fully into account and do not propose to set them out for the purposes of the oral Judgement and indeed, if requested to provide written reasons, I would only necessarily refer to them in amplification of my conclusions.

[45]I was grateful to Ms Snocken for her analysis of the legal position at paragraphs 9 to 20 of her written submissions and I agree with this analysis. Whilst the Claimant’s representative has relied on a number of other cases, for which I was grateful, they are either ones that have already been referred to by Ms Snocken or ones that she has distinguished on the basis that they relate to cases where the claimant in question worked in Great Britain at least part of the time as opposed to someone, as in the case before me, who worked entirely outside Great Britain.

[46]The Claimant’s representative referred to a case called Farrar v THS Industries Textiles Ltd. The reference given of 1805176/2018 was to a judgment at Employment Tribunal level which in reality was simply a dismissal on withdrawal Judgment. I was not able to find any other authority with this name. Essential law

[47]I would refer again to Ms Snocken’s submissions at paragraphs 9 to 20 of her skeleton argument.

[48]In essence, a worker can bring a claim under the Equality Act 2010 if at the time of the discrimination relied upon they were working in Great Britain. Where a Page 7 of 9 worker lives and works wholly abroad, they can only bring a claim in the Employment Tribunal in Great Britain in exceptional circumstances and it is necessary to identify factors which are sufficiently powerful to displace the more obvious connection with the foreign jurisdiction.

[49]The worker will need to show that they have a much stronger connection with both Great Britain and the British employment law than with any other system of law. It is the degree of connection which is relevant. The relative merits of the competing systems of law are irrelevant.

[50]The difficulty for the Claimant is that he was not employed by the first Respondent and my view is that at this point his claim must fail simply on that basis. What he is doing is attempting to bring a claim against a company that did not employ him and against two of their (now) ex-employees as individually liable. I cannot discern any legal basis for this claim under the Equality Act 2010. It is not a matter of territorial jurisdiction it is actually a matter of jurisdiction per se under the Equality Act. I accept the submissions made by Ms Snocken at paragraph 17 to 19 and paragraph 24 of her written submissions in this regard.

[51]In any event, from my findings and from application of the law I do not accept that the Employment Tribunal has territorial jurisdiction to hear this claim.

[52]The Equality Act does not have an explicit territorial restriction. However, it is accepted that it was enacted with the intention that it operated on a worldwide basis. And so case law has established that the same test as set out in Lawson v Serco Ltd

[2006] IRLR 289

, HL in respect of unfair dismissal claims and as interpreted in subsequent cases applies. Indeed, the case law has a common theme, that it is only if a Claimant can show that the connection with Great Britain and British employment law is sufficiently strong will they be able to overcome the general presumption that they will not be able to bring a claim in the Employment Tribunal under the Equality Act.

[53]The difficulty for the Claimant is that he is an Egyptian national, he lived in Egypt, he was recruited in Egypt, initially working for Horizon and then it would appear that his employment was transferred to Elekta Egypt LLC, although I make no positive finding in that regard. His contract of employment was governed by Egyptian law. He worked exclusively in Egypt. He was paid in Egypt in Egyptian Pounds and paid taxes in Egypt. Whilst issues to do with his grievance and appeal were escalated to the second and third Respondents, who were employed by the first Respondent at the time and they worked in Great Britain, they were acting in respect of Elekta Global as part of an international People Operations section. The Claimant only attended one training course in Great Britain in 2005. Further, he is attempting to rely on a job application that was made to the first Respondent after this claim was brought.

[54]There is nothing that establishes that he has stronger ties with Great Britain and British law than with Egypt. Indeed I find the converse to be the case. Page 8 of 9

[55]For these reasons I reach the conclusion that the Employment Tribunal does not have territorial jurisdiction to hear his claim and it is dismissed. Employment Judge Tsamados Date: 18 September 2025 Date: 22 September 2025 All judgments (apart from judgments under Rule 51) and any written reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimants and respondents. If a Tribunal hearing has been recorded, you may request a transcript of the recording. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, you will have to pay for it. If a transcript is produced it will not include any oral judgment or reasons given at the hearing. The transcript will not be checked, approved or verified by a judge. There is more information in the joint Presidential Practice Direction on the Recording and Transcription of Hearings and accompanying Guidance, which can be found at www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/employment-rules-and-legislation-practice-directions/ Page 9 of 9