The house considered the benevolence rule: ‘I do not see any analogy at all between the generosity of private subscribers to a fund for the victims of some disaster, who also have claims for damages against a tortfeasor, and the state providing subventions for the needy out of funds which, in one way or another, … Continue reading Westwood v Secretary of State for Employment: HL 1985
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
Judges: Bedlam LJ, Potter LJ, Sir John Balcombe Citations: Times 02-Jan-1998, Gazette 21-Jan-1998, [1997] EWCA Civ 2899, [1997] IRLR 140, [1998] ICR 258 Links: Bailii Statutes: Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 74 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Appeal from – Digital Equipment Co Ltd v Clements EAT 11-Dec-1996 An excess redundancy payment is to be … Continue reading Digital Equipment Co Ltd v Clements (No 2): CA 4 Dec 1997
The former employer appealed after having dismissed its former managing director, who had taken up other employment found that his current employers had further reduced the salary paid to the former employee thus increasing the damages claimed. Judges: Hull QC HHJ Citations: [1994] UKEAT 582 – 94 – 1011 Links: Bailii Statutes: Employment Protection (Consolidation) … Continue reading Garage Equipment Maintenance Co Ltd v Holloway: EAT 10 Nov 1994
An excess redundancy payment is to be deducted from damages before any per cent pro rata redeuction is to be made for any other reason. An employer paying over statutory minimum on redundancy is entitled to full credit for extra payment of had dismissed unfairly. Citations: Times 11-Dec-1996, [1996] UKEAT 593 – 95 – 0512 … Continue reading Digital Equipment Co Ltd v Clements: EAT 11 Dec 1996
The employee was found to have been unfairly dismissed, but he had not pursued his internal appeal rights. Held: A failure by a dismissed employee to appeal against his dismissal could not amount to a failure to mitigate his losses within section 74(4).Lord McDonald MC said: ‘The appellants accept the finding of unfair dismissal. They … Continue reading William Muir (Bond 9) Ltd v Lamb: EAT 1985
The employee was summarily dismissed by the night production foreman for missing a night shift immediately before taking his annual leave. The personnel officer told the employee about his right of appeal; but the employee decided not to appeal as he did not think there was any point in doing so. The following week the … Continue reading Hoover Ltd v Forde: 1980
There should be no reduction in an award of damages for unfair dismissal simply for participation in strike where the employee had not been not re-instated after the industrial action. Citations: Times 04-Aug-1995, Independent 29-Aug-1995 Statutes: Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 62 74(6) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Employment, Damages Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.79681
The appellants were journalists and other workers, and members of trades unions. Their employers had de-recognised the unions, paying sums to buy out those rights. The claimants had not surrendered their rights, and had been paid less because of it. Held: The Act did not protect the employees rights of association as guaranteed by article … Continue reading Wilson and NUJ, Palmer, Wyeth and RMT, Doolan and Others v The United Kingdom: ECHR 2 Jul 2002
A curate is not an employee of the Church and cannot claim unfair dismissal. Judges: Hull QC Citations: [1995] UKEAT 374 – 95 – 0811 Links: Bailii Statutes: Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 Citing: Appeal from – Coker v Diocese of Southwark ET 16-Mar-1995 An Anglican clergyman is an employee of the church, and so … Continue reading Diocese of Southwark and Others v Coker: EAT 4 Apr 1996
The applicant was given notice on 3rd February 1983 terminating his employment on 28th February 1983. The question arose on appeal whether the date of the notice or the date when he left employment was the relevant date. Held: With a discriminatory dismissal, time does not run until the notice of dismissal has expired and … Continue reading Lupetti v Wrens Old House Ltd: EAT 1984
The appellant employee had been involved in a fight with a fellow-employee and had been dismissed. The other employee received a lesser penalty because the employer believed that Mr. Slack had been the aggressor. The industrial tribunal held that Mr. Slack’s dismissal had been unfair because of certain procedural deficiencies (primarily a failure to disclose … Continue reading Parker Foundry Ltd v Slack: CA 1992
The case tested whether the Industrial Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear a complaint under the regulations. The regulations applied the provisions of the section, but the section had been repealed. Held: The transitional provisions were sufficient to preserve the jurisdiction under the new Act. Citations: [1980] IRLR 176 Statutes: Trade Union and Labour Relations Act … Continue reading White v Pressed Steel Fisher: 1980
The Tribunal dealt with the question that arose when an Industrial Tribunal had considered The EAT was asked whether it was reasonable for an employee to decline the new terms of a contract. The Tribunal’s judgment had said: ‘If it was reasonable for him to decline these terms then obviously it would have been unreasonable … Continue reading Chubb Fire Security Ltd v Harper: EAT 1983
The employee was dismissed on refusing to accept new terms and conditions which were proposed to bring into line the terms and conditions of employees in their original business with those of employees, including the claimant, of another business taken over by the employers. The proposed new terms were financially and otherwise to his detriment. … Continue reading Richmond Precision Engineering Ltd v Pearce: EAT 1985
The employee, an airline pilot, was entitled to three months contractual notice. The Tribunal had awarded compensation for the full three months even although he had earned a salary from other employment during part of that period. Bristow J said: ‘Now the reason that the Industrial Tribunal awarded the equivalent of the wages that Mr … Continue reading Tradewinds Airways v Fletcher: EAT 1981
Ms Gillick had made an application based on sex discrimination in the first place against an agency which had contracted out her services to various divisions of BP Chemicals Ltd. The Respondents were the Company which had done that and in their Notice of Appearance they disputed that there had been an employment relationship between … Continue reading Gillick v BP Chemicals: EAT 1993
The Employment Appeal Tribunal must give reasons for its decision, if it chooses to allow the amendment of appeal the papers in order to hear a point of law which had been conceded in the industrial tribunal. Citing Liverpool Corporation v Wilson, ‘if a point of law goes to jurisdiction, that may be a good … Continue reading Jones v Governing Body of Burdett Coutts School: CA 2 Apr 1998
Mr Polkey was employed as a driver. The company decided to replace four van drivers with two van salesmen and a representative. Mr Polkey and two other van drivers were made redundant. Without warning, he was called in and informed that he had been made redundant, given a redundancy letter setting out the payments due … Continue reading Polkey v A E Dayton Services Limited: HL 19 Nov 1987
Deciding Whether person was an employee (Hong Kong) The Board considered the conclusion that the applicant stone mason was not an employee of the defendant: ‘even if I leaned towards the opposite conclusion, it would nevertheless be quite impossible for me to say that no tribunal correctly directing itself on the law could reasonably have … Continue reading Lee Ting Sang v Chung Chi-Keung: PC 8 Mar 1990
