UK Employment Appeal Tribunal Upholds Jurisdiction Over CNN Journalist’s Claims

Cable News International Inc v Saima Bhatti [2025] EAT 63

On 6 May 2025, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld the decision allowing journalist Saima Mohsin (legal name: Saima Bhatti) to pursue claims of unfair dismissal, discrimination, and equal pay in the UK against CNN’s international arm, despite her employment contract being governed by US law and her work primarily taking place in Asia.

 

Background

Ms Mohsin, a peripatetic journalist, was primarily based in Bangkok and London during her time with CNN. In a judgment issued in August 2023, Employment Judge Pavel Klimov concluded that the Employment Tribunal had territorial jurisdiction to hear her claims from 1 March 2017 onwards, the point at which she had returned to the UK following a work-related injury and began operating more substantively from CNN’s London bureau.

Klimov J found sufficient connection to Great Britain based on the nature of Mohsin’s working arrangements, including:

 

• Her physical return to the UK for medical treatment.
• Her professional intention to work from London with reduced international travel.
• Her use of CNN’s London facilities, including an office pass, ID card, and participation in internal communications.

 

Appeal and Judgment

Cable News International Inc. appealed the decision, arguing that the tribunal had erred in law when determining that it had jurisdiction over Mohsin’s claims. The appeal was permitted by Judge Simon Auerbach, who suggested there was an arguable error in the tribunal’s original reasoning.

However, Judge Timothy Kerr, sitting in the EAT, dismissed the appeal. He found that Employment Judge Klimov had made a proper evaluative assessment of the evidence and had not erred in principle. The EAT agreed that the claimant’s employment had a sufficient connection to Great Britain, thus engaging the jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunal.

Judge Kerr noted that:

“The conclusion that the claimant’s employment had a sufficient connection with Great Britain from 1 March 2017 onward was based on [the judge’s] evaluation of the evidence, and he did not err in principle or adopt a wrong approach to the evaluative assessment.”

Kerr J also acknowledged the complexity of jurisdictional questions in employment law, observing that:

“Anyone who thought the law might be simple and easy to follow and apply must be disappointed.”

 

Significance

This decision reinforces the principle that UK employment tribunals may assume jurisdiction over overseas workers where there is a sufficient connection to Great Britain and British employment law, particularly under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and related equality legislation. The judgment reflects the nuanced and fact-specific nature of such determinations, especially for international or peripatetic employees.

 

Key Legal Takeaways:

• Territorial jurisdiction can apply to employees working abroad if their connection to the UK is sufficiently strong.
• The governing law of the contract (in this case, US law) is not necessarily determinative of jurisdiction in UK employment tribunals.
• Employers with UK operations may be exposed to claims even if the majority of work is performed overseas.

 

What This Means for You

 

This case is a wake-up call for UK-based employers, including SMEs with international or remote workforces. Even where an employment contract is governed by foreign law, and much of the work is performed outside the UK, your business may still be subject to UK employment law — including unfair dismissal, discrimination, and equal pay obligations — if there is a sufficient connection to Great Britain.

For HR leaders and professionals, this highlights several key points:

 

a) Jurisdiction isn’t limited to where work is performed

If an employee is engaging with your UK office, even intermittently — using facilities, attending meetings, or appearing in internal systems — they may gain UK employment rights, particularly if they return to the UK with ongoing work-based objectives.

 

b) Contract law is not enough

Stating that a contract is governed by non-UK law (e.g. US law) does not exclude UK employment rights if the reality of the working arrangement connects the employee to the UK.

 

c) Hybrid and remote working complicates legal exposure

With peripatetic, hybrid, or remote roles becoming increasingly common, this case underscores the importance of legal clarity in how and where your staff are deployed — particularly for roles that shift location due to personal circumstances like illness or injury.

 

d) Your policies and infrastructure matter

Providing access to UK-based systems, offices, or teams may strengthen an employee’s connection to UK law. Be aware that small gestures — like issuing a London office pass or involving someone in internal UK communications — may contribute to legal jurisdiction.

 

Practical Steps for HR and SMEs:

 

• Review overseas and remote contracts to ensure clarity on roles, responsibilities, and jurisdictional expectations.
• Audit employee locations and work patterns, especially where roles may shift to the UK for medical, personal, or operational reasons.
• Develop clear policies for international postings, remote assignments, and temporary UK returns — including legal disclaimers and HR oversight.
• Seek legal advice when employees move between jurisdictions or when dismissals involve international personnel with UK ties.

 

This judgment makes clear: location-based assumptions about legal exposure no longer hold up. If your business touches the UK, even indirectly, your employment practices must comply with UK law.