Crofts & Ors v Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd & Ors

Crofts & Ors v Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd & Ors

The majority held that the Veta pilots, whose contracts required them to be based in London, repatriated from Hong Kong, and whose tours of duty began and ended in London, were employed in Great Britain for the purposes of section 94(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Therefore, the Employment Tribunal had jurisdiction over their unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims. The CPA pilots and Mr Parrock, whose employment was more closely connected to Hong Kong or the USA, were not employed in Great Britain and thus not within the Tribunal's jurisdiction for ERA claims.

Parties
Appellants: Crofts & Ors; Respondents: Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd & Ors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; cross-appeal dismissed in part; Veta pilots' claims remitted to Employment Tribunal; CPA pilots' and Mr Parrock's appeals dismissed.
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Jurisdiction of Employment Tribunal, Forum Non Conveniens, Employment Rights Act 1996, International Employment Contracts
Employment Law Conflict of Laws Unfair Dismissal Jurisdiction of Employment Tribunal Forum Non Conveniens Employment Rights Act 1996 International Employment Contracts

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crofts & Ors

Appellants

Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd & Ors

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear unfair dismissal claims under section 94(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for pilots employed by Hong Kong companies but based in Great Britain
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear breach of contract claims
  3. 3 Whether England was the appropriate forum for breach of contract claims

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that the Veta pilots, whose contracts required them to be based in London, repatriated from Hong Kong, and whose tours of duty began and ended in London, were employed in Great Britain for the purposes of section 94(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Therefore, the Employment Tribunal had jurisdiction over their unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims. The CPA pilots and Mr Parrock, whose employment was more closely connected to Hong Kong or the USA, were not employed in Great Britain and thus not within the Tribunal's jurisdiction for ERA claims.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; cross-appeal dismissed in part; Veta pilots' claims remitted to Employment Tribunal; CPA pilots' and Mr Parrock's appeals dismissed.

Orders

  • Veta pilots' unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims remitted to the Employment Tribunal for determination.
  • CPA pilots' and Mr Parrock's appeals dismissed.