Legal principle
The place of work is an important starting point, but some employees working abroad may still fall within British employment protection because their employment has a sufficiently strong connection with Great Britain.
What the court decided
The House of Lords identified categories including employees ordinarily working in Great Britain, peripatetic employees based here and exceptional expatriate cases with especially strong British connections.
The practical test
- 1
Determine where the employee was based and ordinarily worked at the time of dismissal.
- 2
Identify connections between the employment relationship and Great Britain.
- 3
Assess whether those connections are sufficiently strong compared with the foreign territory.
How tribunals apply it
- Nationality or the employer's incorporation in Britain is not enough by itself.
- The relevant comparison is fact-sensitive and focuses on the employment, not personal preference.
- Later Supreme Court cases, including Ravat, develop the sufficiently-strong-connection approach.
Connected legislation
WorkDisputes tribunal data
Recent decisions involving related issues
These decisions are selected from topic classifications in our public Employment Tribunal dataset. A matching topic does not mean the decision applied this authority directly.
Unfair Dismissal, Discrimination and Unpaid Wages
Employer: Lynx Support Services Ltd
The claims for unauthorised deductions and unfair dismissal were dismissed as out of time, while the discrimination claims were allowed to proceed.
Legal Issues (3)
- Time limits
- jurisdiction
- just and equitable extension of time limits
Reference: 6023481/2024
Unfair Dismissal and Redundancy Pay
Employer: Sopar So Good Ltd
No claim succeeded and no claims remain ongoing. Claim outcomes: unfair_dismissal: struck_out; redundancy: struck_out.
Legal Issues (1)
- Qualifying period of two years' continuous service under sections 108 and 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
Reference: 6007583/2026
Unfair Dismissal and Discrimination
Employer: Small Heath Medical Practice
All claims dismissed because they were presented outside the applicable time limit.
Legal Issues (3)
- Time limits for presenting employment tribunal claims
- constructive unfair dismissal
- race and religion or belief discrimination
Reference: 6033424/2025
Discrimination
Employer: The Chief Constable of West Midlands Police
The tribunal held that judicial proceedings immunity applied to the decisions to dismiss the claimants, and that the EU law-based interpretation in P v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis no longer applies after Brexit, so the claims were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Legal Issues (3)
- Whether judicial proceedings immunity applies to police misconduct proceedings under the Equality Act 2010 after the removal of EU law supremacy
- interpretation of P v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2017] UKSC 65
- effect of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 on the Marleasing interpretation of section 42 of the Equality Act 2010
Reference: 1303890/2025
Other
Employer: TB Kitchen and Bar Ltd
The claim was dismissed because it was presented outside the applicable time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend time.
Legal Issues (2)
- Whether the claim was presented within the time limit
- whether it is just and equitable to extend the time limit
Reference: 6035106/2025
Unfair Dismissal
Employer: Wickes Building Supplies Ltd
The claim was struck out because the claimant lacked the requisite two years' continuous service for an unfair dismissal claim, the claim was presented significantly out of time, and the claimant failed to actively pursue the claim or comply with case management directions.
Legal Issues (3)
- Jurisdiction to hear an unfair dismissal claim: (1) claimant lacked the requisite two years' continuous employment
- (2) claim presented out of time (5 months late) with no explanation
- (3) claim struck out for no reasonable prospect of success and failure to actively pursue (Rule 38)
Reference: 6012922/2025