Follow us

Employers should bear in mind the scope for employees working abroad to bring claims here, even where it has been the employee's choice to relocate.  There may be sufficient connection with Great Britain, particularly if the work is performed remotely for a purely British-based business.

The EAT has allowed an unfair dismissal claim from an employee who chose to relocate to Australia and telework remotely for a business operating only in London. She came to London to work for just over two weeks a year and her grievance and appeal were heard here. The EAT ruled that there was a sufficiently strong connection with Great Britain and British employment law to allow an unfair dismissal claim (notwithstanding that the employee only paid tax in Australia). All of the employee's work in Australia was done remotely by logging onto the London network and was for the London business; the employer did not conduct any business in Australia. The fact that it was the employee's choice to relocate (for family reasons) made no difference. (Lodge v Dignity & Choice in Dying)

Key contacts

Samantha Brown photo

Samantha Brown

Managing Partner of EPI (West), London

Samantha Brown
Steve Bell photo

Steve Bell

Managing Partner - Employment, Industrial Relations and Safety (Australia, Asia), Melbourne

Steve Bell
Emma Rohsler photo

Emma Rohsler

Regional Head of Practice (EMEA) - Employment Pensions and Incentives, Paris

Emma Rohsler
Andrew Taggart photo

Andrew Taggart

Partner, London

Andrew Taggart
Fatim Jumabhoy photo

Fatim Jumabhoy

Managing Partner, Singapore, Singapore

Fatim Jumabhoy
Barbara Roth photo

Barbara Roth

Partner, New York

Barbara Roth