Teleworkers can file labour claims in the court of their place of residence. The law has not changed, but work has. And now, the worker's home is also the seat of justice. If the work is done at home, the law allows the trial to begin there as well. This has been confirmed by the Supreme Court.
In the world of work, teleworking is no longer an exception. Many companies have opted for this hybrid, flexible and efficient formula. But what at first glance seems to be only a matter of internal organisation has legal consequences that should be kept in mind. One of these issues has recently been confirmed by the Supreme Court in its Judgment 365/2025 of 24 April: teleworkers can file a labour claim in the court of their own domicile, even if it is in a city completely different from the company’s domicile.
What happened in this case?
The conflict arose between a person working remotely from their home in Madrid and the company that employed them, based in Las Palmas de Gran Canaria. After being dismissed, the worker filed a claim for dismissal before the Labour Courts of Madrid. The company, dissatisfied, argued that the competent court should be that of Las Palmas, as this was listed as the place of work in the contract. In the first instance, the Madrid court accepted this argument. However, the High Court of Justice (TSJ) of Madrid overturned it. Finally, the Supreme Court settled the dispute: territorial jurisdiction corresponds to the place where the work is actually performed, and in the case of teleworking, that place is the worker’s home.
What exactly does the law say?
Article 10 of the Law Regulating Social Jurisdiction (LRJS) recognises the plaintiff’s right to choose between two competent courts: that of the defendant’s domicile (the company) or that of the place where the services are provided. In cases of on-site work, this does not cause any conflicts: the work is done and the lawsuit is filed in the same place.
But when we talk about teleworking – especially full-time teleworking – the worker’s home becomes their de facto workplace. Therefore, this is also where they can take legal action, without having to travel or accept the imposition of a jurisdiction that is more favourable to the company.
Does what is stated in the contract have any influence?
One of the key points clarified by the Supreme Court is that what is stated in the employment contract does not in itself determine jurisdiction. Even if the contract mentions a specific place of work (as in this case, Las Palmas), what really matters is where the services are actually provided. And if those services are provided from home under a teleworking agreement, that is the valid criterion for legal purposes.
Furthermore, the court points out that the third additional provision of Law 10/2021 on remote working, which defines the place of residence for matters of administrative labour authority, is not applicable for determining jurisdiction. Procedural rules are governed by the LRJS, not by the teleworking law.
What if the worker combines teleworking and on-site work?
In that case, Article 10.1, second paragraph, of the LRJS allows the worker to choose between several options: the court of the place where the services are mainly provided (in person or remotely), the court of the domicile of the contract if the defendant can be summoned there, or the court of the employer’s domicile. Once again, the worker’s right of choice is protected to prevent abuse arising from contractual inequality.
What does this doctrine mean for the company?
Allowing teleworking does not only mean relinquishing control over the worker’s physical presence. It also means that, in the event of a dispute, the company may have to defend itself in a court other than that of its registered office. This procedural reality must be taken into account when defining human resources policies, designing remote working agreements and anticipating the costs of possible litigation.
The decision to allow remote working cannot be separated from its legal implications. Among these, one stands out: the employee’s home becomes a valid place of jurisdiction. It is not just their workspace. It is also, if necessary, the starting point for labour claims.
For further information, please consult our employment advice service.
If you found this interesting, please share it on social media. Thank you!
