- Equality Act 2010 does not have wider territorial scope than the ERA 1996 (News, 12 May 2016)
- Impact of this case
- Relevant law
- Relevant facts and decision of the Divisional Court
- Judgment of the Court of Appeal
The Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) should not be regarded as having a wider territorial reach than domestic legislation directed at outlawing the unfair dismissal of an employee. If it had been Parliament's intention that its anti-discrimination provisions in Part 5 of the EqA 2010 were to operate on a world-wide basis, it would have said so. The principles applicable to claims for unfair dismissal for employees engaged abroad (set out in the judgments of the House of Lords and the Supreme Court’s judgments in Lawson, Duncombe and Ravat) provide the relevant guidance, namely that: (1) the cases in which section 94(1) of Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996), and therefore Part 5, will extend to the employment contract of a foreign based employee are truly exceptional, (2) it is a question of fact and degree in each case as to whether the connection with Great Britain and British employment law is sufficiently strong to overcome the general rule that the place of employment is decisive. CA: Hottak & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for Foreign And Commonwealth Affairs & Anor.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial