header-logo header-logo

27 November 2009 / Sara Khoja
Issue: 7395 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Employment orphans

Sara Khoja considers the territorial scope of UK employment law

Where do you work? Who is your employer? For an internationally mobile employee working in more than one jurisdiction or more than one company within a group the position is not always clear.

The answers depend on various factors and will determine the employee’s employment rights and the employer’s obligations and potential exposure when terminating employment.

Exception rather than rule

In recent years there has been a steady flow of cases in the appeal courts determining the territorial scope of UK statutory employment rights. These largely result from the repeal in 1999 of s 196 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) setting out the act’s territorial scope. This section was repealed as a result of the EU Posted Workers Directive (96/71/EC) and to address highlighted injustices to employees. Nevertheless, it remains the exception rather than the norm for expatriate employees to receive the benefits of UK employment law.

Diggins v Condor Marine Crewing Services Limited [2009] EWCA Civ 1133, [2009] All ER

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll