As a Health and Safety professional, under UK law -
unless the activity was directly related to his work, the company is not liable for incidents arising from the activity. If it could be shown that a) he had an identified medical condition that put him at risk, and b) that condition was exacerbated by the work (including the travel element, but not any interpersonal activities he might get up to whilst travelling) and c) the company had cause to know that he had the condition, then there could be a case.
As it is, the company should have ensured adequate travel insurance - which should include repatriation costs as a standard clause - was in place. If it were the UK and the company was being found liable for the costs I'd presume it was because their travel insurance for work was insufficient. UK case law has established clear boundaries between activity directly related to work and activity incidental to work, although there are still cases that push the boundaries.
Most notably in
Mohamud vs WM Morrisons (http://www.kermanco.com/vicarious-liability-in-the-workplace/) where a supermarket petrol station attendant attacked a client. The supermarket claimed that the assault wasn't work activity - it wasn't, after all, that he was doing what he was paid to do but negligently, it was in direct contravention of company policy and standards - but the court found that because he'd been put there to perform the work, it was the company's responsibility to ensure that he behaved appropriately because they were putting him there. In that case he was directly at work.
By contrast, in
Fletcher vs Chancery Supplies Ltd, an employer was found not vicariously liable when their employee, during work hours but not actively at a client site, walked out in front of a police cyclist knocking him off his bike and injuring him. As far as the court was concerned this was not 'at work'. This was extended in the recent class action by healthcare workers in South Wales who were told by the Supreme Court in 2017 that travel to the first patient of the day, and home from the last patient of the day did not qualify as work travel, whereas travel between clients did. This has been challenged by the a 2018 European Court of Justice ruling on a case in Spain which decided workers without a fixed place of work should be considered to be travelling. The NHS Trust in question argued that the healthcare workers in question were not employees, they were self-employed contractors - that's a part of the larger trend towards pushing gig-economy working to avoid employer obligations, and whilst it's currently technically legal. Given that even now the ECJ's findings are only advisory in the UK (although typically they are upheld), it's not clear what status these sorts of findings in contradiction to the UK court findings will have if and when Brexit kicks in.
O.
