Legal Research
Cases
Lawson v Serco Ltd

Lawson v Serco Ltd

Case [2006] UKHL 3 26 January 2006

Unfair Dismissal

Jurisdiction

Implied Terms

Statutory Interpretation

Expatriate Employees

Employment & Labour Law

International Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

HOUSE OF LORDS
OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT
IN THE CAUSE

Serco Limited (Respondents) v. Lawson (Appellant)

Botham (FC) (Appellant) v. Ministry of Defence (Respondents)
Crofts (Respondent) and others v. Veta Limited (Appellants) and
others and one other action
[2006] UKHL 3

LORD HOFFMANN
My Lords,
The issue
1. The question common to these three appeals is the territorial scope of section 94(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which gives employees the right not to be unfairly dismissed. Section 230(1) defines an “employee” as an individual “who has entered into or works under (or, where the employment has ceased, worked under) a contract of employment.” But the Act contains no geographic limitation. Read literally, it applies to any individual who works under a contract of employment anywhere in the world. It is true that section 244(1) says that the Act “extends” to England and Wales and Scotland (“Great Britain”). But that means only that it forms part of the law of Great Britain and does not form part of the law of any other territory (like Northern Ireland or the Channel Islands) for which Parliament could have legislated. It tells us nothing about the connection, if any, which an employee or his employment must have with Great Britain. Nevertheless, all parties to these appeals are agreed that some territorial limitations must be implied. It is inconceivable that Parliament was intending to confer rights upon employees working in foreign countries and having no connection with Great Britain. The argument has been over what those limitations should be. Putting the question in the traditional terms of the conflict of laws, what connection between Great Britain and the employment relationship is required to make section 94(1) the appropriate choice of law in deciding whether and in what circumstances an employee can complain that his dismissal was unfair? The answer to this question will also determine the question of jurisdiction, since the Employment Tribunal will have jurisdiction to decide upon the unfairness of the dismissal if (but only if) section 94(1) is the appropriate choice of law.
The facts
2. The facts of the three cases illustrate the situations in which the question of territorial scope may arise. In Lawson v Serco Ltd the employer is a substantial United Kingdom company which operates world-wide providing services to the public and private sector. It engaged Mr Lawson, a former RAF policeman, to work as a security supervisor on Ascension Island, where the company had a contract to service the RAF base. After six months on the island, Mr Lawson resigned, claiming that he had been constructively dismissed. Ascension is a 35 square mile volcanic island in the South Atlantic with no indigenous population. About 1100 people are stationed there, mostly working in defence or communications. It is a dependency of the British Overseas Territory of St Helena.
3. In Botham v Ministry of Defence the MOD first employed Mr Botham in 1988 as a “UK-Based Youth Worker” with the British Forces…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Lawson v Serco Ltd

Details

AGLC: Lawson v Serco Ltd [2006] UKHL 3
Case: [2006] UKHL 3
Decision Date: 26 January 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Lawson v Serco Limited, the House of Lords considered the territorial scope of section 94(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which gives employees the right not to be unfairly dismissed. The primary issue was whether the Act applies to employees working outside Great Britain. The court was required to decide the territorial limitations of section 94(1) and whether the Employment Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear claims under the Act in cases where the employment relationship had connections with Great Britain but the employee worked abroad.

The court reasoned that legislation is generally territorial and that section 94(1) must have implied territorial limits. While the original exclusion of cases where employees ordinarily worked outside Great Britain showed Parliament's intent to limit the scope of the Act, the repeal of section 196 meant that the courts were no longer confined to this single criterion. The court considered various formulations proposed by counsel but ultimately concluded that the application of section 94(1) should depend on whether the employee was working in Great Britain at the time of dismissal. The court found that the standard case for the application of the Act was an employee working in Great Britain, but peripatetic employees who were based in Great Britain could also be covered. For expatriate employees, the court held that section 94(1) could exceptionally apply if the employment relationship had a closer connection with Great Britain than with the foreign country where the employee worked.

The court dismissed the appeal in Crofts v Veta Limited and allowed the appeals in Lawson v Serco Limited and Botham v Ministry of Defence, remitting the latter two cases to the Employment Tribunals for hearings on the merits.

Orders