header-logo header-logo

28 February 2008 / Juliet Carp
Issue: 7310 / Categories: Features , Legal services , Profession , Employment
printer mail-detail

It's raining expats cases

Increasing mobility of employees is leading to more jurisdictional disputes, says Juliet Carp

Over the last few months English courts have been busy looking at when our laws apply to employees working abroad. In 2006 the House of Lords decided, in the joined cases of Lawson v Serco Ltd; Botham v Ministry of Defence; Crofts and others v Veta Ltd and others [2006] UKHL 3, [2006] All ER 823 that employees can only claim unfair dismissal in Britain if they are “employed in Great Britain”. Three exceptional situations were described where employees working overseas can make claims here. These are: peripatetic employees based in ; employees working in a British enclave abroad; and employees posted abroad for the purposes of a British business (the latter exception did not actually apply to any of the employees considered in Serco).

Serco was followed by Williams v University of Nottingham UKEAT/0124/07/RN, [2007] All ER (D) 304 (Jan) in which the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) applied the third exception

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: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll