This case has in the words of the EAT, "... raises a fresh twist on the vexed question of the ET’s territorial reach in cases brought under the Employment Rights Act 1996 [equivalent of the Employment Rights (NI) Order 1996].

Ms Lodge was originally from Australia and employed jointly by the respondents in London as Head of Finance. She used a virtual private network (VPN) installed on her laptop computer to sometimes work from her home in London. 

The appellant moved back to Australia after her mother became ill but she continued to work for the respondents remotely via the VPN. Some difficulties arose in the employment relationship after some time and the appellant completed a grievance claim via email at one stage and eventually resigned and claimed constructive dismissal. An employment tribunal ruled it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim.

The EAT overturned that decision. The appellant may have been based in a different continent on the other side of the world but all her work was done for the respondents in their London base, her grievance was heard in London, albeit remotely, and the employer did not dispute her claim that she had no recourse in Australia to pursue her employment rights. Indeed, Clause 19 of her contract said it was agreed that the contract was governed by the law of England and Wales. It would appear, in a world where many employees are based remotely and work via the internet, the location of the work and the employer, rather than the employee, may be of greater importance in determining the correct location to enforce rights or pursue claims. 
http://bit.ly/1DpN5wv 

Note: EAT cases do not set precedent in NI but are generally very persuasive in our tribunals.