Ravat v Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd [2012] UKSC 1, [2012] All ER (D) 49 (Feb)
The starting point in determining whether s 94(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 applied and whether the facts were sufficient to take a case out of the general rule that the place of employment was decisive, was that the employment relationship had to have a stronger connection with Great Britain than with the foreign country where the employee worked. The open ended language of s 94(1) left room for some exceptions to the general rule where the connection with Great Britain was sufficiently strong to show that that could be justified. It would always be a question of fact and degree as to whether the connection was sufficiently strong to overcome the general rule that the place of employment was decisive.
The question whether, on given facts, a case fell within the scope of s 94(1) was a question of law, but was also a question of degree. The reason why an exception could be made in some cases was that the connection between Great Britain and the employment relationship was sufficiently strong to enable
