Spending more time in England than any other country does not necessarily mean that a peripatetic employee can claim unfair dismissal here; the key factor is where the employee is based.

A Danish peripatetic employee carrying out an international role based in Switzerland had freely entered into a contract with a Bermudan company subject to Bermudian governing law and jurisdiction. He had chosen to do so in preference to a UK law contract and made arrangements so that he was not subject to UK taxation. Although he spent just under half of his working time in the UK, and this was more than the time spent in any other one country, his employment was not sufficiently closely connected with the UK and UK law for him to be able to claim unfair dismissal.

The President of the EAT also observed that, given case law developments, the question of “sufficiently close connection” is now a question of fact and therefore a decision by a properly directed tribunal will only be appealable if perverse. (Olsen v Gearbulk Services, EAT)