Diya Sen Gupta QC, instructed by Latham & Watkins LLP, represented Tim Sarnoff in the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) in this appeal which concerned the extent of the Employment Tribunal’s (“ET”) power to make a disclosure order against a person outside Great Britain.
Mr Sarnoff is one of a number of respondents to the original ET claim presented in December 2017. The claimant alleges that she was sexually assaulted and harassed by Harvey Weinstein (the third respondent).
The claim against the other respondents is that, contrary to section 112 of the Equality Act 2010, they “knowingly helped” Mr Weinstein carry out the unlawful acts of assault and harassment. Mr Sarnoff (the tenth respondent) strenuously denies doing so.
Mr Sarnoff lives and works in the US and has contested the claim on numerous grounds, including that the ET does not have territorial jurisdiction.
Before the ET, Mr Sarnoff contended that the ET did not have power to make a disclosure order against him, relying on the express wording of rule 31 of the ET Rules of Procedure 2013 (“the Tribunal may order any person in Great Britain to disclose documents…”).
The ET disagreed and refused to vary or revoke its disclosure order. Mr Sarnoff appealed.
The EAT (Mr Justice Kerr) heard the appeal by video on 23 April 2020.
In a judgment handed down today, the EAT dismissed Mr Sarnoff’s appeal but granted him permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
The full judgment can be read here.