Working Time in UK Law

Exactly the same consideration seems to me to apply if the employer chooses to operate the very same service during the night-time, not by bringing the employees into his office (which would no doubt impose substantial overhead costs on the employer and lead to significant difficulties of recruitment), but by diverting calls from the central switchboard to employees sitting waiting at home.

It is, in the absence of special factors leading to a contrary conclusion; the country where his base is to be which is likely to be the place where he is to be treated as ordinarily working under his contract of employment.

Applying that modified principle of construction, I do not think that the appellants can be right. The natural interpretation of the contract (as modified by that assumption) would not in my view be that pay accrues at an equal rate day by day, and I do not accept that the fact that work may be carried out on any day of the year would justify that conclusion.

It is therefore clear that the right will only exceptionally cover employees who are working or based abroad. The principle appears to be that the employment must have much stronger connections both with Great Britain and with British employment law than with any other system of law.

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?

However, the Tribunal decided jurisdiction on where the appellant was ordinarily working. I would also suggest that "mainly" be given its literal meaning of "for the most part" or as Eveleigh LJ would have it in Todd (p.967)"on a balance of weight".

The Courts invariably assess the lump sum on the "scale" for figures current at the date of the trial - which is much higher than the figure current at the date of the injury or, at the date of the writ. The plaintiff thus stands to gain by the delay in bringing the case to trial. He ought not to gain still more by having interest from the date of service of the writ.