Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Unfairly Dismissed
The Facts
The salient facts are that the Claimant, a British citizen with a home
in Doncaster, was employed by Dolphin Drilling Personnel PTE
Limited (DDPPL), a Singapore company, as a storeman on an oil rig
in the Gulf of Mexico and latterly off the coast of Nigeria where he
was employed when his employment terminated. DDL, a UK
registered company, managed and operated the oil rig that the
Claimant worked on.
1
• The Claimant was a British national with stable residence in
Doncaster.
• His work was carried out in and for the purposes of the business
of DDL, a UK registered company with its head office and
business headquarters in Aberdeen.
• The contract with DDPPL provided that it was subject to the law
of the “English Courts”.
The Appeal
3
Great Britain, funded by his foreign employer to work for the
employer abroad. Such an employee could not demonstrate a UK
base or place of work, neither are the indicative factors, as
mentioned, so close as to establish a UK base such that it would be
appropriate to find that jurisdiction exists.
Conclusion
The EAT by this decision has brought to an end what was described
as a one man battle, albeit in good faith, to apply the “substantial
connection” test in determining the jurisdictional issue that arises
where an employee does not work wholly within Great Britain. The
EAT acknowledges that there may be cases where, by way of an
exception to the rule, it would be appropriate to find that jurisdiction
exists, but such cases appear to be limited to those cases where the
factors are such that it could almost be said that the employee’s
place of work or base of the employee’s work is Great Britain and
therefore it would be appropriate to find that there is a jurisdiction.
For example, in the case of expatriate employees who work abroad
for a British employer.