Telephone Information Services v Wilkinson: EAT 1991

The employee was dismissed. His employers offered to pay to him andpound;9,699, the maximum sum he could have been awarded if the matter went to the tribunal, but made no admission of liability. He rejected the offer, saying that he wanted the vindication of a court hearing. The employers said that under these circumstances, the claim was vexatious and frivolous. The tribunal rejected the employer’s argument, and the employer now appealed.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The tribunal had not erred. The Act gave the separate remedy of having been found to have been unfairly dismissed: ‘It was entirely in accord with the justice of the situation for Mr Wilkinson to be allowed to establish that he had indeed been unfairly dismissed.’
A declaration of unfair dismissal could be of assistance to the claimant in finding work in future. The employers might have compromised the claim by admitting this.

Tucker J
[1991] IRLR 148
Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 54 , Industrial Tribunal (Rules of Procedure) Regulations 1985 1292)(e)
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedBurns v Ship- Link (Uk) Ltd EAT 22-Sep-1995
. .
CitedNRG Victory Reinsurance Ltd v Alexander EAT 12-May-1992
. .
CitedMante v Newham Community Health Services NHS Trust EAT 15-Jun-1999
. .
DistinguishedMitchell and others v Amersham and Wycombe College EAT 31-Mar-2003
EAT Working Time Regulations – An appeal by Ms Mitchell, Ms Lynn and Mr Nagulendran, part-time lecturers employed by the Respondent College, against a decision of the London (Central) Employment Tribunal . .
CitedPower v Panasonic (UK) Limited EAT 9-Mar-2005
EAT Practice and Procedure – Costs. Costs order. Permissible option applying 2 stage exercise under R14(1) 2001 ET Rules. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.277107