All leading cases

UK Supreme Court

Ravat v Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd

[2012] UKSC 1

Develops the sufficiently-strong-connection test for an employee commuting from Britain to work overseas.

territorial jurisdictionunfair dismissal

Legal principle

An employee whose workplace is abroad may exceptionally claim British unfair-dismissal protection where the employment relationship has a stronger connection with Great Britain and British employment law than with the country of work.

What the court decided

The Supreme Court found jurisdiction where the employee lived in Britain, worked on a rotational basis overseas, was managed from Britain and had been assured that UK employment law governed the relationship.

The practical test

  1. 1

    Identify the employee's workplace and working pattern at dismissal.

  2. 2

    Evaluate the employment's operational, managerial and contractual connections with Great Britain.

  3. 3

    Compare those connections with the connection to the foreign workplace.

How tribunals apply it

  • The test is one of degree and does not create a checklist where any single factor is decisive.
  • Assurances about applicable law can matter but do not create statutory jurisdiction by agreement alone.
  • The connection must be sufficiently strong to displace the normal significance of working abroad.

Connected legislation

WorkDisputes tribunal data

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.

21 Sept 2026
Mixed outcome

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

21 Sept 2026
Claim struck out

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

18 Sept 2026
Dismissed on jurisdiction

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

17 Sept 2026
Dismissed on jurisdiction

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

15 Sept 2026
Dismissed on jurisdiction

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

15 Sept 2026
Claim struck out

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