Duncombe v Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families [2011] UKSC 14 and [2011] UKSC 36 is a UK labour law case, concerning the test for when the continued used of a fixed term contract is objectively justified, and when employees are covered by employment rights during work abroad.

The Court of Appeal[1] held successive fixed-term contracts for work in European schools was not objectively justified.

Lady Hale and Lord Rodger[2] decided that use of successive fixed term contracts was objectively justified under the Regulations.

Had the Secretary of State chosen to offer them all nine year terms and take the risk that the schools would not have kept them for so long, they would have had no complaint.

The Secretary of State could not foist those teachers on the schools for a longer period, no matter how unjustifiable either he or the employment tribunals of this country thought the rule to be.

The cross appeal concerned whether UK labour law applied so that there could be an unfair dismissal complaint under ERA 1996 section 94, on which judgment was reserved.

On the cross appeal question, Lady Hale[3] held that the teachers were protected by Employment Rights Act 1996 section 94.

It is common ground that the basic principle was laid down by the House of Lords in Lawson v Serco Ltd [2006] UKHL 3, [2006] ICR 250.

In our view, these cases do form another example of an exceptional case where the employment has such an overwhelmingly closer connection with Britain and with British employment law than with any other system of law that it is right to conclude that Parliament must have intended that the employees should enjoy protection from unfair dismissal.

Although this factor is not mentioned in Lawson v Serco, it must be relevant to the expectation of each party as to the protection which the employees would enjoy.