A judge has ruled that a lawyer working for a regional member firm of Baker McKenzie had no contract of employment with the international practice.
Ruby Mohammad had tried to bring employment claims against Baker & McKenzie LLP and its services subsidiary as well as her own firm, UAE-based Habib Al Mulla & Partners.
Sitting at the London Central tribunal, Employment Judge Richard Woodhead heard that the firms had various links but ultimately that Mohammad had no contract with Baker McKenzie, either express or implied. Claims against Baker McKenzie therefore failed.
During Mohammad’s employment, Habib Al Mulla was a member firm of Baker McKenzie (the arrangement ended last year) but was not in partnership with it – nor did they have any common ownership.
Mohammad was a junior associate in the real estate department in the Dubai office of Habib Al Mulla until her contract was terminated after three weeks in 2022. She told the tribunal that the contract terms she was offered were not reflective of the true arrangements and that in fact she had employment with Baker McKenzie.
Mohammad asserted she was told during her interview for Habib Al Mulla – and subsequent discussions with Keri Watkins, head of real estate in Baker McKenzie’s Dubai office – that she would be required to assist the UK team with work as required. She was also asked to provide support to other member firms in the region or elsewhere in Europe, the Middle East or Africa.
Mohammad also claimed she was told she would be able to work out of the Baker McKenzie offices in the UK, and she had interviewed for Habib Al Mulla at the London office. Her recruitment was partly coordinated by the Baker McKenzie recruitment manager Vanessa Renforth and a week into her employment Mohammad was reprimanded on a call by Watkins.
But Mohammad’s employment contract was overwhelmingly centred on the UAE and she was expected to perform work only within Dubai. She was never told she would be subject to UK employment law.
The judge said Mohammad had a ‘clear express contract’ with Habib Al Mulla and there was no basis for concluding there was a second implied contract with Baker McKenzie.
He added: ‘The fact that the claimant might have, on behalf of [Habib Al Mulla] assisted the [Baker McKenzie] with [its] client work or might have worked from the [Baker McKenzie] offices does not indicate that she was an employee of the [firm] and nor do the interactions she had with employees.’
He dismissed claims against Habib Al Mulla on the basis that the UK tribunal was not the appropriate forum.
