Ravat v Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd [2012] UKSC 1
Published on: 10/02/2012
Issues Covered:
Dismissal
Article Authors
The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Background
This case concerned the employment status of individuals who are resident in Great Britain and are employed by a British company but who travel to and from home to work overseas.The respondent supplies tools, services and personnel to the oil industry. The claimant, a British citizen, was employed by the appellant from 2 April 1990 as an accounts manager until he was dismissed with effect from 17 May 2006. The reason for his dismissal was redundancy. The claimant complains that he was unfairly dismissed. The complication in his case is that at the time of his dismissal he worked for 28 consecutive days in Libya, followed by 28 consecutive days at home. In effect he was job sharing. During the 28 days when he was at home the work was done in his place by another employee on the same arrangement. His rotational work pattern was in accordance with the appellant's international commuter assignment policy. The question was whether the employment tribunal had jurisdiction to consider his complaint.The question whether the respondent's complaint of unfair dismissal could be heard in Scotland was not an easy one to answer. Section 94(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 provides: "An employee has the right not to be unfairly dismissed." Section 230(1) of that Act provides that "employee" means an individual who has entered into or works under (or, where the employment has ceased, worked under) a contract of employment. Neither of these provisions contains any geographical limitation. However, the court held that some limitation must be applied.The court held that as the question was ultimately one of degree, considerable respect must be given to the decision of the employment tribunal as the primary fact-finder. The EAT held that the conclusion that the balance was in favour of the respondent fell within the band of reasonable responses available to a reasonable chairman of employment tribunals. The test 66which he applied was whether there was a substantial connection with Great Britain. The Court held that the tribunal reached a conclusion that it was entitled to reach and that it was a correct conclusion. It also held that section 94(1) must be interpreted as applying to the respondent's employment, and that the employment tribunal has jurisdiction to hear his claim. The Court dismissed the appeal. It also held that the case will be remitted to the employment tribunal to deal with the merits of the respondent's claim that he was dismissed unfairly.http://bit.ly/yp4qfX
Continue reading
We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.
Already a subscriber?
Please log in to view the full article.
What you'll get:
- Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
- Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
- 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
- Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team
Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial
Disclaimer
The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article.
This article is correct at 10/02/2012
Recent Case Law
Duployen v Whyte & Mackay Ltd [2025]
14/01/2025
McCahon v Chief Constable of the PSNI [2024]
16/12/2024
Q&A
How to handle it
Legal Island’s LMS, licensed to you
Imagine your staff having 24/7 access to a centralised training platform, tailored to your organisation’s brand and staff training needs, with unlimited users.
Learn more →
