header-logo header-logo

16 September 2010 / Sam Burnett
Issue: 7433 / Categories: Features , Discrimination , Disciplinary&grievance procedures , Employment
printer mail-detail

Employment protection

Sam Burnett considers the territorial reach of UK dismissal & discrimination protection

Two wives of servicemen, who were employed by the MOD at international schools situated in NATO headquarters in the Netherlands and Belgium, were dismissed when their husbands left the armed forces to become civilian employees of NATO. They brought claims of unfair dismissal and sex discrimination in the Watford employment tribunal. Did the tribunal have jurisdiction to hear their claims? The tribunal decided it did, and the EAT (see MOD v Wallis and Grocott (UKEAT/0546/08/ZT)) agreed.

Unfair dismissal

The right not to be unfairly dismissed generally applies to employees who are working in Great Britain at the time of their dismissal. However, some employees working abroad will have an employment relationship the characteristics of which are sufficiently exceptional that the right will also apply to them. Applying the principles laid down by the House of Lords by Lord Hoffmann in Lawson v Serco [2006] IRLR 289, the EAT in Wallis decided that there was a sufficiently special link between the wives’

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: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

JMW—Belinda Brooke

JMW—Belinda Brooke

Employment and people solutions offering boosted by partner hire

NEWS

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
back-to-top-scroll