Mr Ravat began working for Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd., a UK-based subsidiary of Halliburton Inc, in 1990. In 2003, he accepted a transfer to Libya and worked a pattern of 28 consecutive days abroad followed by 28 consecutive days spent at home in the UK. His travel costs were paid for by Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd. even though the actual work he was doing was for the benefit of another Halliburton subsidiary in Germany, which was charged by the UK-based subsidiary for his services.

 

In May 2006, Mr Ravat was dismissed as redundant and was paid a redundancy payment in accordance with the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA). He brought a claim for unfair dismissal. Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd. argued that the ET did not have jurisdiction to hear his claim.

 

The Supreme Court ruled that the list of exceptions in Lawson is not exhaustive but gives examples of situations where the correct test is met, this being where the employee’s connection with GB and British employment law is sufficiently strong to show that Parliament must have intended that Section 94(1) of the ERA should apply It will be a question of fact and degree as to whether the connection is sufficiently strong to overcome the general rule that the place of employment is decisive in determining jurisdiction.

 

Applying those principles to Mr Ravat’s case, the Court ruled that the ET did have jurisdiction to hear his claim, which was therefore remitted for consideration on its merits.

 

The law pertaining to the rights of employees working abroad can be very complicated. We can provide specialist advice on your individual circumstances.

 

However, this is not always the case. The Court of Appeal recently refused a claim against the MIB by a passenger who was injured in a crash which was the responsibility of the uninsured driver of the car.

 

The claim was rejected on the ground that the reason the two men were in the car was that they were on their way to buy cannabis – a criminal offence. The driver claimed not to be personally liable under the legal doctrine that prevents an action being taken which stems from a ‘dishonourable cause’ (in this case the criminal activity). The Court did not accept this defence, but since he has very limited assets, the value of a claim against him was effectively nil.

 

However, the shortfall did not have to be picked up by the MIB, because the relevant legislation specifically excludes claims which arise in the course of, or in the furtherance of, a crime.

 

In a recent case, the High Court held that certain aspects of the broadcasts, such as the airing of the Premier League anthem, had breached the copyright of the Premier League.

 

The decision implies that if the copyright items could be stripped from the relevant broadcasts, there would be no impediment to publicans using foreign providers instead of British ones for such material.

 

Hearing of the appeal against the original decision is due to commence this week.

 

 

The Government is encouraging small businesses to:

 

If the economy has turned the corner, the period of greatest risk is as the upturn starts. This is because it is cash-flow more than profit which creates the risk of insolvency. As a business expands, it needs to borrow more to finance its increased stockholdings and debtor book, and late payment by creditors can be fatal in such circumstances.

 

If you are having problems collecting your debts, contact us for advice before the situation becomes critical.

 

 

Heath Riley, who was 42 when the accident occurred, was delivering a skip for Enviro Skips Ltd. of Burnley. The skips were not stacked properly and the one on top of the pile fell onto Mr Riley’s right hand. He had to have his thumb amputated at the site of the accident and was then taken to Royal Preston Hospital, where surgeons removed his index finger also. With the loss of movement in two other fingers, he can no longer use his right hand.

 

As a result of the injury, Mr Riley, who is right-handed, has been unable to return to his former work and is no longer capable of carrying out many everyday tasks.

 

Mr Riley’s employer admitted liability as the skips were damaged and not safe to use.

 

Employers have a duty to keep their employees safe from foreseeable harm. This necessitates assessing and controlling workplace risks. Special care must be taken where the work involves machinery and heavy equipment and systems should be put in place to recognise faults and/or damage that could make this unsafe to use.

 

The Health and Safety Executive has useful guidance on the safe use of machinery and equipment at work, which can be downloaded here.