GFTU Emplaw Emplaw Emplaw

Ravat v Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd - ET jurisdiction relies on strong connection between employment and Great Britain [2012] UKSC

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? 

From 1990 Mr Ravat worked in the oil business for US company Halliburton's UK subsidiary. From 2003, however, he worked in Libya, on operations being carried out by a Halliburton company in Germany. He reported to African managers, his salary was paid via Germany, and his travel was arranged by a company in Malta. Halliburton had, nonetheless, told him that UK law applied to him. In 2006 he was made redundant and claimed unfair dismissal. The Aberdeen employment tribunal concluded that it had jurisdiction to hear the claim. 

The full content of this page is available to subscribers only. Please purchase a subscription if you feel this content will be of use to you.

Login or subscribe (includes subscription information) to access the full content of this page.