It is not fatal to an unfair dismissal claim by an employee working abroad that they do not fall within one of the three exceptions set out in Serco v Lawson. That list is not exhaustive, but provides examples of the true test, which is whether the connection between Great Britain and the employment relationship is strong enough to conclude that Parliament must have intended that employee, in that situation, to be protected. In other words, is the connection strong enough to overcome the general (but not absolute) rule that the place of employment determines jurisdiction?
Ravat v Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd - ET jurisdiction relies on strong connection between employment and Great Britain
Supreme Court - 08/02/12
Emplaw Links:
Subscribe to Emplaw Professional now to get the full benefit of our news service
Subscribers to emplaw professional get full access to our news service, along with 5,000 pages of comprehensive, up-to-date information, covering all aspects of employment law in our Law Guide.
To read the full content of the above article, including links to relevant web sites and Law Guide pages, you can subscribe today to one of our daily, monthly or annual packages.
You can also sign-up to our e-PSL email newsletter, which will keep you up-to-date with the latest developments every week.
Other articles in Cases - Other:
-
Commission v United Kingdom - seconded teachers entitled to full rights and benefits of STPCD as open to those in England & Wales
Teachers on secondment to the European Schools from the UK must (contrary to current practice) be allowed full access to the same rights to career progression and retirement as those applicable to their national counterparts (ie under the School Teachers Pay and Conditions Document).
Read More. -
Weight Watchers & Ors v HMRC - Group Leaders are employees
Weight Watchers Group Leaders are employees of Weight Watchers UK for tax purposes.
Read More. -
Stott v Thomas Cook Tour Operators Ltd & Anor - air travellers, the Montreal Convention, and disability discrimination
Not an employment law case, but one concerning the goods and services provisions of disability discrimination law; specifically aboard passenger aircraft, where a legal loophole means that there is no liability for injury to feelings to a disabled person between boarding and disembarkation - ie when the Montreal Convention exclusively applies.
Read More. -
Burke v The College of Law & Anor - competency standards, PCPs, and reasonable adjustments for disability
Court of Appeal upholds EAT - the time given to take an exam may be a "competency standard" rather than a "provision criterion or practice", and would not be deprived of such status by being adjusted. Nonetheless, where it has been adjusted to the maximum extent reasonable, this can be a factor in concluding that, overall, all reasonable adjustments were made for a disabled candidate.
Read More. -
Ravat v Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd - ET jurisdiction relies on strong connection between employment and Great Britain
It is not fatal to an unfair dismissal claim by an employee working abroad that they do not fall within one of the three exceptions set out in Serco v Lawson. That list is not exhaustive, but provides examples of the true test, which is whether the connection between Great Britain and the employment relationship is strong enough to conclude that Parliament must have intended that employee, in that situation, to be protected. In other words, is the connection strong enough to overcome the general (but not absolute) rule that the place of employment determines jurisdiction?
Read More.
