on Friday, 09 June 2017.
Mr Green worked at SIG Trading Ltd's (SIG) office in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). He lived in Lebanon and commuted to work in KSA.
Mr Green was required to visit the UK occasionally for the purpose of attending meetings and training. His contract stated it would be governed by the laws of England and Wales and referred to various British statutory protections.
When Mr Green was made redundant, he brought an unfair dismissal claim in the UK. However, the Employment Tribunal (ET) argued that it did not have jurisdiction to hear his claim because Mr Green's employment had little connection to the UK.
Mr Green appealed and the Employment Appeal Tribunal noted that the ET had largely disregarded the fact that the parties had agreed that the contract would be governed by English law. The EAT found that the ET had, on the other hand, given excessive weight to SIG's position that it had merely used the contract for convenience and had therefore not truly represented the parties' intentions.
The case was remitted to the ET for reconsideration.
This case does not change the legal position. An objective assessment of all the relevant facts is required when deciding whether an employee has a sufficiently strong connection with the UK to bring an unfair dismissal claim.
However, the contract of employment is an important factor. You should always ensure that an employee's contract reflects the intention of the parties, including in respect of jurisdiction.
The case also highlights the dangers of using a standard form contract for overseas employees without considering whether it is appropriate for the particular employee involved.