Cross-border, international and jurisdictional issues

This topic provides guidance on some of the key cross-border, international and jurisdictional issues that may be encountered in the employment context.

Employee working wholly or partly abroad

Where a dispute or claim arises in respect of an employee who works wholly or partly abroad and/or has a foreign employer, two questions will need to be determined:

•
what are the employee’s rights?
•
where should any litigation that may ultimately arise be adjudicated?

In determining these questions, three main issues arise:

•
applicable law, ie which system of law is applicable to the contract of employment under consideration?
•
international jurisdiction, ie whose courts and/or tribunals should decide the case?
•
the territorial scope of relevant applicable or mandatory law, ie how the courts and employment tribunals decide what statutory rights (if any) the employee has, both in terms of:
1. ◦
  purely domestic law rights, and
2. ◦
  rights derived from EU law

EU-derived laws applicable in the UK are assimilated law. For further information, see Practice Note: Assimilated law.

It is important to understand that the applicable law and jurisdiction are

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Employment News

House of Commons publishes motions ahead of consideration of Employment Rights Bill on 8 December

The House of Commons on 5 December published motions relating to Lords amendments to the Employment Rights Bill (ERB), in advance of its consideration of the those amendments on 8 December (to be followed by a swift ping-pong back to the Lords, expected on 10 December).The government amendments include: guaranteed hours offers for zero hours workers—the government has offered a concession in the form of consultation on the initial reference period unfair dismissal—in addition to the reduction of the qualifying period from two years to six months (rather than its removal altogether), the government amendments would remove the unfair dismissal compensation cap entirely by omitting section 124 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996)reasons for dismissal for which there is no qualifying period—the government proposes to include in the list of reasons in ERA 1996, s 108(3) dismissal for failure to disclose a spent conviction or ancillary circumstances seasonal workers—the government proposes to consult with those representing the interests of seasonal workers and their employers before making regulations contributions to political funds from union members—the government amendments provide for an opt-out notice to be given on a day specified in, or determined by, the trade union’s rules, and for the Secretary of State to publish guidance (within three months of the measures coming into force about the kind of provision which the Secretary of State considers it is appropriate for the rules of a trade union to make for these purposes industrial action balloting—the government amendments require the Secretary of State, before bringing regulations into force to have regard to the effect provision for balloting other than by post on the proportion of those eligible to vote in such ballots doing so a number of MPs have tabled an amendment that the Commons should insist on the removal of the unfair dismissal qualifying period.

Exploring the earned settlement proposals

Immigration analysis: In the Home Office’s own words, the earned settlement proposals represent ‘the biggest shake-up of the legal migration system in nearly half a century’. The publication of the Government’s White Paper, ‘Restoring control over the immigration system’, on 12 May 2025, signalled its intention to introduce a new model of ‘earned settlement’, including increasing the qualifying period from five to ten years (with potential reductions for contribution to the economy and society), but provided scant detail, deferring this to a consultation process in ‘the autumn’. The hotly anticipated policy statement and consultation document, ‘A fairer pathway to settlement’ was finally published on 20 November 2025, setting out the proposals. Arguably, the 60-page document raises more questions than it answers, with a problematic lack of definitions, omission of important details, and conflicting references. In a number of respects, it goes much further than may have been foreseen from the initial indications of the White Paper. So what will it all mean for migrants and employers in the UK—and how can advisors help support them through these times of great uncertainty and seismic change? This article examines the main proposals, the key questions, and the practical implications. Written by Sophie Barrett-Brown, Senior Partner and Head of UK practice, Laura Devine Immigration.

Finance Bill 2026 published

Finance Bill 2026 was published on 4 December 2025.

HMCTS announces technical problems regarding pre-February 2017 ET judgments have been resolved

Mark Lewis of HMCTS, the Service Manager for Employment Tribunals, has asked for the following message to be forwarded to members of the national user group in England & Wales: