Ravat v Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd

Section 94(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 has an implied territorial limitation, but its application is not confined to fixed categories of overseas employment. The decisive inquiry is whether the employment relationship has a sufficiently strong connection with Great Britain and British employment law to justify the statutory protection, notwithstanding foreign elements.

The place of work is normally decisive. A commuter who lives in Great Britain need not, however, meet the especially high connection required of an employee who both lives and works abroad. The assessment is one of fact and degree. Contractual assurances cannot create tribunal jurisdiction, but they and the practical handling of the employment relationship may be relevant indicators of its connection with British employment law.

Ravat v Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd concerned a British employee of a United Kingdom company who lived in England but worked in Libya on a 28-days-on, 28-days-off rotational assignment. He claimed unfair dismissal following redundancy.

An employment tribunal held that it had jurisdiction. The Employment Appeal Tribunal set that decision aside. The Inner House of the Court of Session allowed the employee’s appeal by majority: [2010] CSIH 52; 2011 SLT 44. The employer appealed to the Supreme Court. The central issue was whether section 94(1) applied to this overseas employment and therefore conferred jurisdiction on the employment tribunal.

1. The appeal was unanimously dismissed. Lord Hope, with whom Lady Hale, Lord Brown, Lord Mance and Lord Kerr agreed, held that section 94(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 applied to the employment. The tribunal had jurisdiction, and the case was remitted to it to determine the unfair-dismissal claim on its merits.

2. The statutory right has an implied territorial limit. The ordinary case is employment in Great Britain, and the place of employment is generally decisive. The language of section 94(1), however, permits exceptional overseas cases. The question is whether the employment has a stronger connection with Great Britain and British employment law than with the foreign country in which the employee works. This is a question of law applied to facts and degree. The examples in Lawson v Serco Ltd were illustrations of that principle, not exhaustive categories.

3. An employee who both works and lives abroad normally requires an especially strong connection before the statute applies. A commuter who retains a home in Great Britain has a less onerous burden. Residence matters where it explains the employee’s commuter status and the terms on which the employment relationship is maintained.

4. The parties could not contract into tribunal jurisdiction. Nevertheless, contractual assurances of British-law protection and the employer’s practical treatment of the relationship were relevant, though not determinative, factors in the statutory connection inquiry.

5. Here the British employer assigned the employee abroad on a rotational commuter arrangement, preserved United Kingdom pay and pension benefits, paid him in sterling into a United Kingdom bank account, and dealt with dismissal and grievance matters through its Aberdeen human-resources department. Those factors outweighed the Libyan workplace and overseas group-company operations. The connection was sufficiently strong for Parliament to be taken to have intended section 94(1) to apply.

• United Kingdom Supreme Court: Dismissed the employer’s appeal and affirmed the Extra Division’s interlocutor. The claim was remitted to the employment tribunal.
• Court of Session, Inner House, Extra Division: By majority, allowed the employee’s appeal from the Employment Appeal Tribunal and restored tribunal jurisdiction: [2010] CSIH 52; 2011 SLT 44.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Set aside the employment tribunal’s ruling that it had jurisdiction.
• Employment Tribunal: Held that it had jurisdiction to hear the unfair-dismissal complaint.