Ravat v Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd

The Supreme Court considered whether an employee who lived in Great Britain but was working on a rotational basis in Libya could bring a claim for unfair dismissal under section 94(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The court held that section 94(1) can apply to employment carried out abroad where the employment relationship has a stronger connection with Great Britain than with the foreign country. The test is one of degree: the place of work is normally decisive but may be displaced where factors such as the employer's base in Great Britain, the employee's home in Great Britain, continued application of UK pay, tax and pension arrangements, assurances from the employer about UK rights, and termination procedures handled in Great Britain combine to show a sufficiently strong connection.

Applying these principles and the guidance in Lawson v Serco Ltd and Duncombe v Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (No 2), the court concluded that the respondent's employment had a closer connection with Great Britain and that the employment tribunal in Scotland had jurisdiction. The appeal was dismissed and the matter was remitted to the tribunal to decide the merits of the unfair dismissal claim.

This appeal concerned the territorial reach of the right not to be unfairly dismissed under section 94(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The respondent, a British citizen living in Preston, was employed by a UK company and worked on a commuter/rotational basis (28 days in Libya followed by 28 days at home). He was dismissed for redundancy while working in Libya and claimed unfair dismissal. The central issue was whether a tribunal in Great Britain had jurisdiction given the overseas element of his work.

The case had the following procedural history:

• Employment tribunal (Aberdeen) held it had jurisdiction (23 November 2007).
• Employment Appeal Tribunal set that decision aside (14 November 2008).
• Inner House, Extra Division, allowed the respondent's appeal (22 June 2010; 2011 SLT 44).
• Appeal to the Supreme Court followed.

The Supreme Court examined the guidance in Lawson v Serco Ltd on the territorial limits of section 94(1) and the subsequent treatment in Duncombe. The court identified the governing principle as whether the employment relationship has a stronger connection with Great Britain than with the foreign country where the work is performed. That principle is applied as a question of degree: the ordinary rule that the place of employment is decisive can be displaced where relevant factors point strongly to Great Britain. The court held that the commuter status, the employer's base in Great Britain, retention of UK pay/pension/tax arrangements, employer assurances about UK law, and the handling of dismissal and grievance procedures in Aberdeen together established a sufficient connection. The Supreme Court therefore dismissed the appeal and remitted the case to the employment tribunal to deal with the merits of the unfair dismissal claim.

Issues framed by the court:

• Whether section 94(1) reaches employment carried out abroad in circumstances where the employment has a closer connection with Great Britain than with the foreign state.
• How to apply the principles in Lawson and subsequent authorities to a commuter/rotational employment arrangement.
• The relevance of factors such as domicile, employer’s base, contractual assurances, pay/tax arrangements and the locus of dismissal procedures.

Appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court held that section 94(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 can apply to an employee working abroad where the employment relationship has a stronger connection with Great Britain than with the foreign country; on the facts the respondent’s commuter arrangement, the employer’s base in Great Britain, UK pay/tax/pension arrangements, employer assurances and the handling of dismissal in Aberdeen established a sufficiently strong connection, so the employment tribunal had jurisdiction. The case was remitted to the tribunal to determine the merits.

Employment tribunal (Aberdeen) found jurisdiction (23 November 2007). Employment Appeal Tribunal set aside that decision (14 November 2008). Inner House, Extra Division allowed the respondent's appeal (22 June 2010; reported 2011 SLT 44). Appeal to the Supreme Court: [2012] UKSC 1.