Click the case name for better results:

Tesco Stores Ltd v S (Unfair Dismissal): EAT 1 Apr 2021

UNFAIR DISMISSAL; Reason for dismissal; band of reasonable responses; investigation. In a claim of unfair dismissal, the reason for dismissal relied upon by the employer in terms of section 98 of the Employment Rights Act, 1996 ‘(ERA’) was ‘conduct’. The evidence suggested that the employer had considered a range of matters all of which related … Continue reading Tesco Stores Ltd v S (Unfair Dismissal): EAT 1 Apr 2021

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Walden, Kealfreight Ltd: EAT 22 Jul 1999

Employee to show company insolvent to claim EAT Insolvent Employer – The onus is on the applicant seeking payment for lost wages from the Secretary of state to establish that the employer company is insolvent. There must be proof of the occurring of an event falling within section 183(3) EAT Insolvency – (no sub-topic) Judges: … Continue reading The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Walden, Kealfreight Ltd: EAT 22 Jul 1999

Stratford On Avon District Council v Hughes (Jurisdictional /Time Points): EAT 17 Dec 2020

The Claimant was dismissed on 29 March 2019. He maintained that the dismissal was unfair and contacted ACAS on 25 June 2019. ACAS informed him on 2 August 2019 that his employer did not wish to continue with the conciliation process and a certificate was emailed to him that day. The email was not received … Continue reading Stratford On Avon District Council v Hughes (Jurisdictional /Time Points): EAT 17 Dec 2020

Greater Glasgow Health Board v Neilson (Transfer of Undertakings; Dismissal; Remedies; Re-Engagement): EAT 16 Feb 2021

The Claimant was dismissed by the Appellant immediately prior to a TUPE transfer from the Appellant to a third party. He brought a claim for unfair dismissal against the Appellant alone in which he claimed that his dismissal was unfair in terms of Regulation 7(1) of TUPE. The Appellant conceded that the dismissal of the … Continue reading Greater Glasgow Health Board v Neilson (Transfer of Undertakings; Dismissal; Remedies; Re-Engagement): EAT 16 Feb 2021

Angard Staffing Solutions Ltd and Another v Kocur and Another (Agency Workers and Contract of Employment): EAT 11 Dec 2020

This appeal is primarily concerned with the scope of the rights conferred on agency workers by and the Agency Workers’ Regulations 2010 (‘the AWR’), which implements the Agency Workers Directive (‘the Directive’) into domestic law. The EAT found that: (1) The right conferred by regulation 13(1) of the AWR (derived from Article 6.1 of the … Continue reading Angard Staffing Solutions Ltd and Another v Kocur and Another (Agency Workers and Contract of Employment): EAT 11 Dec 2020

In Re Coventry (deceased): CA 3 Jan 1979

The deceased’s adult son sought provision from the intestate estate. The sole beneficiary under the rules was the plaintiff’s mother. The estate was modest; the intestate’s interest in his house (he had been living there with the plaintiff). The widow was found to have a one third interest in it. The judge took the disposable … Continue reading In Re Coventry (deceased): CA 3 Jan 1979

British Broadcasting Corporation v Kelly-Phillips: CA 24 Apr 1998

When a one year fixed term employment contract was extended by a period of less than a year, but then not again renewed, there was no unfair dismissal, since the exemption for the original term applied also to any extension. There had been conflicting interpretations of the statutory provisions. S197 could not be construed on … Continue reading British Broadcasting Corporation v Kelly-Phillips: CA 24 Apr 1998

Hay and Others v Gilgrove Ltd and Others: CA 26 Apr 2013

The employees, registered market porters, appealed against reversal of the Tribunal’s judgment that the employer had made unlawful deductions from their wages. The deductions purported to have been authorised under collective agreements from the 1970s. The employers dedcuted porterage charges from the stall holders, and distributed the charge among all the porters, saying that the … Continue reading Hay and Others v Gilgrove Ltd and Others: CA 26 Apr 2013

El-Kholy v Rentokil Initial Facilities Services (UK) Ltd: EAT 21 Mar 2013

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Extension of time: reasonably practicableWhere a Claimant has retained a solicitor to act for him and failed to meet the deadline for presenting a complaint of unfair dismissal to an Employment Tribunal, the adviser’s fault will defeat any attempt to argue that it was not reasonably practicable to make a timely … Continue reading El-Kholy v Rentokil Initial Facilities Services (UK) Ltd: EAT 21 Mar 2013

Clarence High School and Another v Boardman: CA 15 Mar 2013

The claimant school teacher had been dismissed, after a finding that she had assaulted a pupil. She denied the assualt. Held: The School’s appeal against the decision of the EAT to re-instate the claim of unfair dismissal succeeded. The EAT had wrongly substituted its won veiw of the facts for that of the Tribunal. However … Continue reading Clarence High School and Another v Boardman: CA 15 Mar 2013

Steer v Stormsure Ltd (Sex Discrimination, Human Rights): EAT 21 Dec 2020

The Appellant has presented a claim in the Employment Tribunal in which she alleges that she was dismissed by the Respondent and that the dismissal amounted to sex discrimination and/or victimisation on the ground that she had done a protected act, contrary to the Equality Act 2010. She appeals against the Employment Tribunal’s refusal to … Continue reading Steer v Stormsure Ltd (Sex Discrimination, Human Rights): EAT 21 Dec 2020

Barot v London Borough of Brent: EAT 17 Jan 2013

EAT REDUNDANCY PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity The Claimant worked as an Accountant in the Respondent’s Children and Families Directorate. The Employment Tribunal was correct to find that a redundancy situation was created when the Respondent reorganised the Directorate and introduced requirement for skills the Claimant was not considered to have. … Continue reading Barot v London Borough of Brent: EAT 17 Jan 2013

McBride v Employment Appeal Tribunal: SCS 25 Jan 2013

The appellant had been employed by the Police as a fingerprint officer. She was unfairly dismissed after a wrongful accusation. The tribunal ordered that she be reinstated, but on terms which would not result in her attending court as an expert witness. The EAT had concluded that the Tribunal’s decision to order reinstatement was perverse, … Continue reading McBride v Employment Appeal Tribunal: SCS 25 Jan 2013

McAdie v Royal Bank of Scotland: CA 31 Jul 2007

The claimant succeeded in her claim for unfair dismissal, but now appealed against the reversal of the decision by the EAT. She had been dismissed for incapability to which she had contributed by her conduct. She had refused a move to another bank of the branch which would upset her child care arrangements. She was … Continue reading McAdie v Royal Bank of Scotland: CA 31 Jul 2007

SG Petch Ltd v English-Stewart: EAT 31 Oct 2012

EAT Maternity Rights and Parental Leave Sex discriminationUnfair dismissal The Tribunal erred in concluding there was a discriminatory dismissal on the grounds that the Claimant had taken maternity leave, contrary to section 3A of the SDA, section 99 of the 1996 Act and paragraph 20 of MAPLE, when in the light of the Tribunal’s own … Continue reading SG Petch Ltd v English-Stewart: EAT 31 Oct 2012

Generale Bank Nederland Nv (Formerly Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland Nv) v Export Credit Guarantee Department: CA 23 Jul 1997

The bank claimed that it had been defrauded, and that since an employee of the defendant had taken part in the fraud the defendant was had vicarious liability for his participation even though they knew nothing of it. Held: Where A becomes liable to B as a joint tortfeasor with C in the tort of … Continue reading Generale Bank Nederland Nv (Formerly Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland Nv) v Export Credit Guarantee Department: CA 23 Jul 1997

Guildprime Specialists Contractors Ltd v Knight: EAT 24 Sep 2012

EAT UNLAWFUL DEDUCTION FROM WAGES At the hearing of the Claimant’s claim of unauthorised deductions, taken from his payments when he was made redundant in order to repay his car loan, the Employment Tribunal raised with the employer’s counsel the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. It then ruled upon it without giving counsel … Continue reading Guildprime Specialists Contractors Ltd v Knight: EAT 24 Sep 2012

Kingston Upon Hull City Council v Schofield and Others: EAT 6 Nov 2012

EAT UNLAWFUL DEDUCTION FROM WAGESThe Claimants claimed that the Respondent had wrongly evaluated their jobs under the applicable job evaluation scheme. They contended that properly evaluated they would have been awarded higher scores entitling them to a higher Grade, (Grade 7 or 8). They brought claims for deduction from wages under the Employment Rights Act … Continue reading Kingston Upon Hull City Council v Schofield and Others: EAT 6 Nov 2012

Booley v British Army Mod: EAT 19 Jul 2012

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Time for appealingJURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Excluded employmentsThe Claimant, a former soldier, resigned and claimed constructive unfair dismissal and breach of contract in the Employment Tribunal. It declined jurisdiction: Employment Rights Act 1996 ss191-2 disapply the Act to the armed forces. The Claimant received clear legal advice to that effect but … Continue reading Booley v British Army Mod: EAT 19 Jul 2012

Carmichael and Lesse v National Power Plc: CA 29 Jan 1997

Casual workers employed under ‘nil hours’ relationship still had a contract of employment and the appropriate and associated rights. A court was fully able to determine the terms of the contract. Citations: Times 02-Apr-1998, Gazette 13-May-1998, [1997] EWCA Civ 871, [1999] ICR 1226, [1998] EWCA Civ 558, [2000] IRLR 43 Statutes: Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act … Continue reading Carmichael and Lesse v National Power Plc: CA 29 Jan 1997

Anderson and Others v London Fire Emergency Planning Authority: EAT 19 Jul 2012

EAT CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENTWhether establishedImplied term/variation/construction of termThe Employment Tribunal erred in holding that the agreement reached between the Respondent and Trade Unions for the third year of a three year pay deal was not legally enforceable because it gave the employer two options for the pay increase to be awarded with no agreement as … Continue reading Anderson and Others v London Fire Emergency Planning Authority: EAT 19 Jul 2012

National Union of Teachers and others v Governing Body of St Mary’s Church of England (Aided) Junior School and others: CA 12 Dec 1996

The acquired rights directive applies to a board of governors of a school since it is an ’emanation of state’. LMA This was a claim by teachers who had lost their jobs. They claimed the protection of te hDirective. Held: The governing body of the voluntary aided school was an emanation of the State. The … Continue reading National Union of Teachers and others v Governing Body of St Mary’s Church of England (Aided) Junior School and others: CA 12 Dec 1996

Cumbria Partnership NHS Foundation Trust v Steel: EAT 17 May 2012

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL Employment Rights Act 1996, section 98(4) Fairness of dismissal Before the Employment Tribunal it was agreed that the Claimant was dismissed for the potentially fair reason of redundancy. It was disputed that the test of fairness was satisfied. The Claimant alleged that he was the highest scoring applicant for a new post, … Continue reading Cumbria Partnership NHS Foundation Trust v Steel: EAT 17 May 2012

Kent County Council v Knowles: EAT 9 Mar 2012

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSALThe Appellant authority suspended the Claimant after receiving information from the police that he had been involved in dishonesty which had serious financial and reputational consequences for them. There was no contractual right to suspend without pay. The Claimant was not in custody but was available for work. The Employment Tribunal upheld his … Continue reading Kent County Council v Knowles: EAT 9 Mar 2012

London Underground Ltd v National Union of Railwaymen, Maritime and Transport Workers (NURMT): CA 9 Oct 1995

A Union’s immunity from action was not lost where employees who had joined the company after the strike ballot had been completed, were encouraged by the union to join in the strike. The constituency defined in section 227(1) must include all members whom it is reasonable for the union to believe will be induced to … Continue reading London Underground Ltd v National Union of Railwaymen, Maritime and Transport Workers (NURMT): CA 9 Oct 1995

Biggs v Somerset County Council: CA 29 Jan 1996

The employee at the time of her dismissal was expressly debarred by statute from bringing her complaint of unfair dismissal because she was a part-time employee. It was only many years later the statute was held to impugn EU law and had done so retrospectively. Held: Despite the fact that the Claimant could not have … Continue reading Biggs v Somerset County Council: CA 29 Jan 1996

Coker v Diocese of Southwark: ET 16 Mar 1995

An Anglican clergyman is an employee of the church, and so has employment rights. Citations: Independent 16-Mar-1995, Times 04-Apr-1996 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Appeal from – Diocese of Southwark and Others v Coker EAT 4-Apr-1996 A curate is not an employee of the Church and cannot claim unfair dismissal. . .At the Employment … Continue reading Coker v Diocese of Southwark: ET 16 Mar 1995

Qua v John Ford Morrison (Solicitors): EAT 14 Jan 2003

The claimant appealed the refusal of her claim for a finding that her dismissal was automatically unfair. She had been employed for less than a year, and had taken several absences to care for her child. She claimed protection saying that her absences had been ‘dependants leave’. Held: When considering such a claim, the tribunal … Continue reading Qua v John Ford Morrison (Solicitors): EAT 14 Jan 2003

Rees v The United Kingdom: ECHR 17 Oct 1986

The applicant had been born and registered as a female, but later came to receive treatment and to live as a male. He complained that the respondent had failed to amend his birth certificate. Held: The court accepted that, by failing to confer on a transsexual a right to an amended birth certificate, the state … Continue reading Rees v The United Kingdom: ECHR 17 Oct 1986

Croft v Royal Mail Group Plc (formerly Consignia Group plc): CA 18 Jul 2003

The employee was a transsexual, awaiting completion of surgical transformation to a woman. The employer said she could not use the female toilet facilities, but was offered use of the unisex disabled facilities. Held: The 1975 Act provides for a category of persons who are not to be discriminated against. By virtue of the definition … Continue reading Croft v Royal Mail Group Plc (formerly Consignia Group plc): CA 18 Jul 2003

Reverend Doctor A B Coker v Diocese of Southwark; Bishop of Southwark and Diocesan Board of Finance: CA 11 Jul 1997

A Church of England Assistant Curate is not an employee, but rather a holder of an ecclesiastical office. There is a presumption that ministers of religion were office-holders who did not serve under a contract of employment. Accordingly he is not entitled to claim to have been unfairly dismissed under the legislation. Mummery LJ said: … Continue reading Reverend Doctor A B Coker v Diocese of Southwark; Bishop of Southwark and Diocesan Board of Finance: CA 11 Jul 1997

Adams v Kingdom Services Group Ltd: EAT 11 Dec 2019

Practice and Procedure – Striking Out of Claims PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Imposition of Deposit PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Amendment of Notice of Appeal 1. The Employment Tribunal was correct to refuse to strike out the claim of unfair dismissal under s.104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It was entitled to make a deposit … Continue reading Adams v Kingdom Services Group Ltd: EAT 11 Dec 2019

Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co: HL 13 Feb 1880

Damages or removal of coal under land User damages were awarded for the unauthorised removal of coal from beneath the appellant’s land, even though the site was too small for the appellant to have mined the coal himself. The appellant was also awarded damages for the damage done to the houses on the surface. If … Continue reading Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co: HL 13 Feb 1880

Employers’ Liability Insurance ‘Trigger’ Litigation: BAI (Run Off) Ltd v Durham and Others: SC 28 Mar 2012

The court considered the liability of insurers of companies now wound up for mesothelioma injuries suffered by former employees of those companies, and in particular whether the 1930 Act could be used to impose liability. The insurers now appealed against findings that some policies, those which insured against injury ‘sustained’ during the policy period, as … Continue reading Employers’ Liability Insurance ‘Trigger’ Litigation: BAI (Run Off) Ltd v Durham and Others: SC 28 Mar 2012

Kaltz Ltd v Hamer: EAT 24 Feb 2012

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL Contributory fault Polkey deduction Employee dismissed following disciplinary proceedings for: (1) misconduct towards other staff; (2) misconduct in attitude to directors; and (3) disclosure of information from staff payroll (3 instances). Employment Tribunal reject claims of wrongful and unfair dismissal but find dismissal ‘automatically unfair’ because one instance of disclosure was a … Continue reading Kaltz Ltd v Hamer: EAT 24 Feb 2012

Readman v Devon Primary Care Trust: EAT 1 Dec 2011

EAT Redundancy : Suitable Alternative Employment – Did the Employment Tribunal err in law in concluding that the Appellant had unreasonably refused an offer of alternative employment for her own reasons, when it had correctly concluded that the offer was an offer of suitable employment which a reasonable employee could have accepted? Judges: Wilkie J … Continue reading Readman v Devon Primary Care Trust: EAT 1 Dec 2011

GE Caledonian Ltd v McCandliss: EAT 22 Nov 2011

EAT Contract of Employment : Whether Established – SEX DISCRIMINATION – Jurisdiction – Unfair dismissal. Sponsorship of former mechanical engineering apprentice (Claimant) for university degree under a ‘University Sponsorship’ contract. Claimant withdrew from degree course and sponsor gave him the option of either resuming it or accepting an internship, both of which he declined. Sponsor … Continue reading GE Caledonian Ltd v McCandliss: EAT 22 Nov 2011

Royal Bank of Scotland v Donaghay: EAT 11 Nov 2011

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSALSEX DISCRIMINATION – ComparisonUnfair dismissal – misconduct. Claimant assaulted girlfriend (also RBS employee) in circumstances where he alleged he had been provoked by her having slapped him. Sex discrimination. Circumstances in which Employment Tribunal were held to have erred in requiring misconduct, for the purposes of s.98(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, … Continue reading Royal Bank of Scotland v Donaghay: EAT 11 Nov 2011

The President of The Methodist Conference v Preston: CA 20 Dec 2011

The claimant had been an ordained minister in the church. She sought to claim unfair dismissal. The Conference replied that she was not an employee entitled to make such a claim. Held: The claimant was an employee. Judges: Maurice Kay VP, Longmore LJJ, Sir David Keene Citations: [2011] EWCA Civ 1581, [2012] 2 WLR 1119, … Continue reading The President of The Methodist Conference v Preston: CA 20 Dec 2011

Julio v Jose: EAT 8 Dec 2011

EAT NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE ACT 1998National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999, Reg. 2(2)Unauthorised deductions from wagesAll three Claimants were foreign domestic workers employed in the Respondents’ households. The EAT held that the work done by each of the three Claimants for their respective employers was work to which regulation 2(2) of the National Minimum Wage Regulations … Continue reading Julio v Jose: EAT 8 Dec 2011

Jose v Julio: EAT 8 Dec 2011

EAT NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE ACT 1998National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999, Reg. 2(2)Unauthorised deductions from wagesAll three Claimants were foreign domestic workers employed in the Respondents’ households. The EAT held that the work done by each of the three Claimants for their respective employers was work to which regulation 2(2) of the National Minimum Wage Regulations … Continue reading Jose v Julio: EAT 8 Dec 2011

Chamsi-Pasha and Another v Udin and Another: EAT 8 Dec 2011

EAT NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE ACT 1998 National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999, Reg. 2(2) Unauthorised deductions from wages All three Claimants were foreign domestic workers employed in the Respondents’ households. The EAT held that the work done by each of the three Claimants for their respective employers was work to which regulation 2(2) of the National … Continue reading Chamsi-Pasha and Another v Udin and Another: EAT 8 Dec 2011

Udin v Chamsi-Pasha and Others: EAT 8 Dec 2011

EAT NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE ACT 1998 National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999, Reg. 2(2)Unauthorised deductions from wages All three Claimants were foreign domestic workers employed in the Respondents’ households. The EAT held that the work done by each of the three Claimants for their respective employers was work to which regulation 2(2) of the National Minimum … Continue reading Udin v Chamsi-Pasha and Others: EAT 8 Dec 2011

Khan v General Medical Council: CA 11 Apr 1994

The appellant’s application for full registration as a qualified medical practitioner had been refused by the GMC after a five-year maximum period of limited registration. His application for full registration in accordance with section 25 of the Medical Act 1983 was refused by the GMC. He then applied to the Review Board for Overseas Qualified … Continue reading Khan v General Medical Council: CA 11 Apr 1994

Ponticelli UK Ltd v Gallagher: EAT 12 Sep 2022

Transfer of Undertakings; Share Incentive Plan; Obligation ‘In Connection With’ The Contract of Employment The claimant’s contract of employment transferred to the appellant under TUPE, 2006 on 1 May 2020. Prior to the transfer, he had been a member of a Share Incentive Plan operated by the transferor which he had joined in August 2018 … Continue reading Ponticelli UK Ltd v Gallagher: EAT 12 Sep 2022

Hardie Grant London Ltd v Aspden: EAT 3 Nov 2011

EAT Unfair Dismissal : Constructive Dismissal Compensation Employment Tribunal entitled to conclude, on the facts, that Respondent was in breach of implied term of trust and confidence. Claimant resigned in response. She was constructively dismissed. S.124(1) Employment Rights Act 1996. The Employment Tribunal was wrong to make a compensatory award to Claimant in excess of … Continue reading Hardie Grant London Ltd v Aspden: EAT 3 Nov 2011

Hinton v Argos Ltd: EAT 7 Oct 2011

EAT VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATIONWhistleblowingProtected disclosureThe Employment Tribunal clearly found the Claimant was dismissed fairly by reason of redundancy. That finding meant that the claim that he was dismissed for whistleblowing failed. There was no error of law.It is reasonably arguable that the claim of per-employment detriments which failed as a matter of construction of Employment Rights … Continue reading Hinton v Argos Ltd: EAT 7 Oct 2011

Pillay v Inc Research UK Ltd: EAT 9 Sep 2011

EAT (Practice and Procedure : Striking-Out or Dismissal) The Employment Judge ought not to have struck out the Claimant’s claim for unfair dismissal under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust [2007] ICR 1126 applied. Judges: Richardson J Citations: [2011] UKEAT 0182 – 11 – 0909 Links: Bailii … Continue reading Pillay v Inc Research UK Ltd: EAT 9 Sep 2011

Freeman v Ultra Green Group Ltd: EAT 9 Aug 2011

EAT VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Protected disclosureUNFAIR DISMISSAL – Automatically unfair reasonsThe Tribunal erred in law in holding that words spoken at a meeting by the Claimant did not amount to information for the purposes of section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Cavendish Munro Professional Risks Management v Geduld [2010] ICR 125 applied.The Tribunal … Continue reading Freeman v Ultra Green Group Ltd: EAT 9 Aug 2011

P v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis: SC 25 Oct 2017

This appeal concerns the directly effective right of police officers under EU law to have the principle of equal treatment applied to them. The question raised is whether the enforcement of that right by means of proceedings in the Employment Tribunal is barred by the principle of judicial immunity, where the allegedly discriminatory conduct is … Continue reading P v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis: SC 25 Oct 2017

The Governing Body of Wishmorecross School v Balado: EAT 12 Jul 2011

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Claim in time and effective date of terminationClaimant given notice of dismissal subject to a right of appeal and on the basis that the employment would not terminate if she lodged an appeal by a prescribed deadline, which she was treated as having done – Claimant presents claim in advance of … Continue reading The Governing Body of Wishmorecross School v Balado: EAT 12 Jul 2011

Winchester and Eastleigh Healthcare NHS Trust v Walker: EAT 24 Jun 2011

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – CompensationPRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barkebr />The successful Claimant worked in the NHS from 1983 but for the Respondent Trust only from 2006. The dispute about this was raised in submissions on the basic award. The Employment Tribunal calculated back to 1983. The EAT allowed the jurisdictional point about Employment Rights … Continue reading Winchester and Eastleigh Healthcare NHS Trust v Walker: EAT 24 Jun 2011

The Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills v Coward and Another: EAT 21 Jul 2011

EAT RIGHTS ON INSOLVENCYThe Employment Judge erred in law in making an award of notice pay under section 182 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 when the employer company was not insolvent as defined in section 183(1) and (3). Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Walden [2000] IRLR 168 applied. Judges: Richardson j … Continue reading The Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills v Coward and Another: EAT 21 Jul 2011

M-Choice UK Ltd v Aalders: EAT 10 Aug 2011

mchoice_aaldersEAT2011 EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Claim in time and effective date of terminationThe employee was dismissed on notice expiring on 1 February 2011. On its expiry she would have had sufficient qualifying service to present a complaint of unfair dismissal. On 11 January 2011 during her period of notice she presented a complaint of unfair … Continue reading M-Choice UK Ltd v Aalders: EAT 10 Aug 2011

Hellewell and Another v Axa Services Ltd and Another: EAT 25 Jul 2011

EAT UNLAWFUL DEDUCTION FROM WAGESThe Claimants made claims against their employer for an unlawful deduction from their wages contrary to the provisions of section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, in respect of money due under its bonus scheme for the years 2009 and 2010. The Claimants had been dismissed by reason of gross … Continue reading Hellewell and Another v Axa Services Ltd and Another: EAT 25 Jul 2011

Smith v London Metropolitan University: EAT 21 Jul 2011

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissalVICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Protected disclosureThe ET erred in holding that the Appellant lecturer was fairly dismissed for misconduct in refusing to undertake duties which the Respondent required her to undertake. The ET failed to consider whether the employer had conducted a proper investigation into the agreement reached as to … Continue reading Smith v London Metropolitan University: EAT 21 Jul 2011

Compass Group Plc v Ayodele: EAT 14 Jul 2011

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Retirement UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Polkey deduction Employee reaching retirement age requests extension – Employer purports to follow procedure under Schedule 6 of Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 and rejects request – Tribunal holds, on basis of admissions from employer’s witnesses, that the managers in question regarded themselves as absolutely bound by … Continue reading Compass Group Plc v Ayodele: EAT 14 Jul 2011

Dacas v Brook Street Bureau (UK) Ltd, Wandsworth London Borough Council: EAT 12 Nov 2002

EAT Contract of Employment – Definition of Employee Judges: The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (P) Citations: EAT/492/02, [2002] UKEAT 492 – 02 – 1112 Links: Bailii, EAT Statutes: Employment Rights Act 1996 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Cited – McMeechan v Secretary of State for Employment CA 11-Dec-1996 The respondent as a temporary worker was … Continue reading Dacas v Brook Street Bureau (UK) Ltd, Wandsworth London Borough Council: EAT 12 Nov 2002

Saha v Capita Plc: EAT 29 Nov 2018

VICTIMISATION DICRIMINATION – Protected disclosure The Claimant alleged in her Particulars of Claim that the Respondent subjected her to a detriment because she had alleged in an email of 1 December 2015 that asking her to work certain hours would be a breach of the Working Time Regulations 1998. A list of issues agreed at … Continue reading Saha v Capita Plc: EAT 29 Nov 2018

Reyes v Al-Malki and Another: SC 18 Oct 2017

The claimant alleged that she had been discrimated against in her work for the appellant, a member of the diplomatic staff at the Saudi Embassy in London. She now appealed against a decision that the respondent had diplomatic immunity. Held: The appeal was allowed: ‘the question whether the exception in article 31(1)(c) would have applied … Continue reading Reyes v Al-Malki and Another: SC 18 Oct 2017

St John Ambulance v Mulvie: EAT 1 Jul 2011

EAT VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Protected disclosureThe issue was whether a complaint under section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 had been presented in time. The employment judge ruled that that issue should be decided when the Claimant’s other claims were considered on their merits, because evidence was required to decide whether the various detriments … Continue reading St John Ambulance v Mulvie: EAT 1 Jul 2011

The Secretary of State for Business Innovations and Skills v Studders and Others: EAT 17 May 2011

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS Worker, employee or neither Agency relationships The Claimants were not employees of Respondent 4, on its insolvency the Secretary of State had no liability to them under s.182-188 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Judges: Serota QC J Citations: [2011] UKEAT 0571 – 10 – 1705 Links: Bailii Statutes: Employment Rights Act … Continue reading The Secretary of State for Business Innovations and Skills v Studders and Others: EAT 17 May 2011

Oudahar v Esporta Group Ltd (Unfair Dismissal : Automatically Unfair Reasons): EAT 22 Jun 2011

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Automatically unfair reasonsUnfair dismissal – automatically unfair reasons – health and safety cases.Section 100(1)(e) should be applied in two stages. Firstly, the Tribunal should consider whether the criteria set out in that provision have been met, as a matter of fact. Were there circumstances of danger which the employee reasonably believed … Continue reading Oudahar v Esporta Group Ltd (Unfair Dismissal : Automatically Unfair Reasons): EAT 22 Jun 2011

Eaga Plc v Tideswell: EAT 16 May 2011

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissalThe Employment Tribunal’s reasons show that the majority did not correctly apply section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. London Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Small [2009] IRLR 563 and Fuller v London Borough of Brent [2011] EWCA Civ 267 considered. Judges: Richardson J Citations: [2011] UKEAT 0007 … Continue reading Eaga Plc v Tideswell: EAT 16 May 2011

Vivian v Bournemouth Borough Council: EAT 4 Feb 2011

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSALAn act is on the ground that an employer has made a protected disclosure within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996 section 47B if it is done by reason of such a disclosure or because the act was inherently for such a reason. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan … Continue reading Vivian v Bournemouth Borough Council: EAT 4 Feb 2011

Ross v Eddie Stobart Ltd: EAT 14 Jan 2011

EAT WORKING TIME REGULATIONSVICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Whistleblowing1. The Claimant was a ‘mobile worker’ to whom the Road Transport (Working Time) Regulations 2005 (‘the RTR’) applied. The Tribunal did not consider the RTR; and if it had considered the RTR ought to have found that the Claimant was correct in asserting that if the Respondent required … Continue reading Ross v Eddie Stobart Ltd: EAT 14 Jan 2011

Foreningen Af Arbejdsledere I Danmark v Daddy’s Dance Hall A/S: ECJ 10 Feb 1988

The claimant, Mr Tellerup, was employed as a restaurant manager by the transferor, Irma Catering A/S. When its lease was terminated it dismissed all staff. Mr Tellerup’s statutory period of notice expired on 30 April 1983. But it continued to run the business with the same staff until 25 February 1983, from when a new … Continue reading Foreningen Af Arbejdsledere I Danmark v Daddy’s Dance Hall A/S: ECJ 10 Feb 1988

Royal Mail Ltd v Jhuti: CA 20 Oct 2017

The employee complained of her dismissal having made protected disclosures. The company said that the dismissal was for reasons of inadequate work. Held: The company’s appeal succeeded. Subject to possible qualifications said to be irrelevant to the present case, a tribunal required to determine ‘the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for … Continue reading Royal Mail Ltd v Jhuti: CA 20 Oct 2017

Jhuti v Royal Mail Group Ltd and Others: EAT 31 Jul 2017

EAT (Practice and Procedure) 1. While there is no express power provided by the ETA 1996 or the 2013 Rules made under it, the appointment of a litigation friend is within the power to make a case management order in the 2013 Rules as a procedural matter in a case where otherwise a litigant who … Continue reading Jhuti v Royal Mail Group Ltd and Others: EAT 31 Jul 2017

Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti: EAT 19 May 2016

EAT Victimisation Discrimination: Dismissal – Whether the Employment Tribunal’s determination that dismissal was not automatically unfair under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996 because the person who decided to dismiss was misled by the Claimant’s line manager (to whom she had made a protected disclosure) who engineered her dismissal because she had done so was … Continue reading Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti: EAT 19 May 2016

Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd: CA 17 Apr 2008

The claimant had argued that she had been unfairly dismissed since her dismissal was founded in her making a protected disclosure. The ET had not accepted either her explanation or that of the employer. Held: The employee’s appeal failed, and the employer’s succeeded. It was wrong to draw parallels with prohibited grounds reasons and unfair … Continue reading Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd: CA 17 Apr 2008

Vivian v Bournemouth Borough Council: EAT 6 May 2011

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSALAn act is on the ground that an employer has made a protected disclosure within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996 section 47B if it is done by reason of such a disclosure or because the act was inherently for such a reason. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan … Continue reading Vivian v Bournemouth Borough Council: EAT 6 May 2011

Peninsula Business Services Ltd v Rees and Others: EAT 21 Apr 2011

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSALReasonableness of dismissalS.98A(2) Employment Rights Act 1996The new Employment Tribunal on remission from the EAT correctly found the Claimants were unfairly dismissed for redundancy. It correctly construed s 98A(2) as not applicable where the Respondent failed to complete Step 2 of the SDDP: Davies applied. Judges: McMullen QC J Citations: [2011] UKEAT 0407 … Continue reading Peninsula Business Services Ltd v Rees and Others: EAT 21 Apr 2011

Locke v Tabfine Ltd (T/A Hands Music Centre): EAT 29 Nov 2010

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Extension of time: reasonably practicableThe Employment Tribunal had correctly directed itself that the evidential burden of proving under section 111(2)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, in cases where it is it is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented before the end of the … Continue reading Locke v Tabfine Ltd (T/A Hands Music Centre): EAT 29 Nov 2010

Breakell v West Midlands Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Association Named As Shropshire Army Cadet Force: EAT 11 Apr 2011

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Worker, employee or neitherAppeal by an Army Cadet Force Adult Instructor from the judgment of an Employment Judge sitting alone that he was a volunteer and not in ’employment’ as defined by s68(1) Disability Discrimination Act 1995 as amended. Appeal dismissed. The Employment Judge was correct as his factual findings were … Continue reading Breakell v West Midlands Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Association Named As Shropshire Army Cadet Force: EAT 11 Apr 2011

Lambert v Vicomte Bernard De Romanet Ltd: EAT 18 Mar 2011

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSALProcedural fairness/automatically unfair dismissalCompensationContributory faultUnfair Dismissal under s98A(1) and 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996. Employment Tribunal find 100% contribution and deduction under s123(1). No compensatory award (save in respect of loss of statutory rights).No error in Employment Tribunal approach. Ingram (UKEAT/0601/06. 23 April 2007. Elias P) considered and followed. Citations: [2011] UKEAT 0501 … Continue reading Lambert v Vicomte Bernard De Romanet Ltd: EAT 18 Mar 2011

Parker v Northumbrian Water: EAT 30 Mar 2011

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Estoppel or abuse of process/AmendmentThe appeal was dismissed on issue estoppel. Issue estoppel applied not to the declarations made by the first Employment Tribunal, as apparently decided in the Pre Hearing Review judgment, but to the breach of contract issues that had been decided at that first hearing as stated … Continue reading Parker v Northumbrian Water: EAT 30 Mar 2011

Cross, Gibson v British Airways Plc: CA 11 May 2006

The claimants had been employed by a company with a normal retirement age of 60. The company was sold to British Airways, wher eh normal age was 55. On being obliged to retire the claimed unfair dismissal. They now appealed dismissal of that claim. Held: The applicable normal age of retirement under an employment contract … Continue reading Cross, Gibson v British Airways Plc: CA 11 May 2006

Retirement Security Ltd v Wilson: EAT 11 Jul 2019

Unfair Dismissal — Constructive Dismissal – Reason for Dismissal Including Some Other Substantial ReasonThe ET upheld the Claimant’s complaint of constructive unfair dismissal, finding that the Respondent’s conduct of an investigatory process into allegations of misconduct was such as to be likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of trust and confidence and amounted … Continue reading Retirement Security Ltd v Wilson: EAT 11 Jul 2019

T Mobile (Uk) Ltd v Singleton: EAT 23 Mar 2011

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Claim in time and effective date of termination(1) Employment Judge erred in finding that the employer had caused the employee to make an error in his calculation of the three month time limit in failing to disabuse him of his mistake when there was no evidence of any misrepresentation or deliberation … Continue reading T Mobile (Uk) Ltd v Singleton: EAT 23 Mar 2011

Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust: EAT 18 Mar 2011

EAT CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Disciplinary and grievance procedure UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason (1) An employee who has been dismissed because of the breakdown of working relationships between himself and his colleagues (irrespective of whether he had been responsible for, or had contributed to, that breakdown) had not had … Continue reading Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust: EAT 18 Mar 2011

McElhinney v Ireland; Al-Adsani v United Kingdom; Fogarty v United Kingdom: ECHR 21 Nov 2001

Grand Chamber – The first applicant said he had been injured by a shot fired by a British soldier who had been carried for two miles into the Republic of Ireland, clinging to the applicant’s vehicle following an incident at a checkpoint. Held: Rules granting the State immunities, did not infringe the applicants’ right to … Continue reading McElhinney v Ireland; Al-Adsani v United Kingdom; Fogarty v United Kingdom: ECHR 21 Nov 2001

Amazon.Co.Uk.Ltd v Hurdus: EAT 10 Feb 2011

EATR UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal Employment Tribunal found dismissal for redundancy reason unfair under s98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996 on two grounds; (i) selection (ii) alternative employment. As to (i) ET substituted own view as to a fair selection procedure and as to (ii) failed to consider whether employer’s attempts to find alternative … Continue reading Amazon.Co.Uk.Ltd v Hurdus: EAT 10 Feb 2011

Ministry of Defence v Wallis and Grocott: CA 8 Mar 2011

Mrs Wallis was employed by the Ministry of Defence at the international school attached to SHAPE in Belgium. Mrs Grocott was employed by the Ministry in the British section of the Armed Forces North International School in the Netherlands. Both SHAPE and JFC are entities within the structure of NATO. They were recruited because they … Continue reading Ministry of Defence v Wallis and Grocott: CA 8 Mar 2011

Greenwood v NWF Retail Ltd: EAT 18 Feb 2011

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke An Employment Tribunal decision must comply in both form and substance with 30(6) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 SI No. 1861 and failure to do so will amount to an error of law; Balfour Beatty Power Networks Ltd v Wilcox [2006] EWCA … Continue reading Greenwood v NWF Retail Ltd: EAT 18 Feb 2011

Norman and Another v NWF Retail Ltd: EAT 18 Feb 2011

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke An Employment Tribunal decision must comply in both form and substance with 30(6) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 SI No. 1861 and failure to do so will amount to an error of law; Balfour Beatty Power Networks Ltd v Wilcox [2006] EWCA … Continue reading Norman and Another v NWF Retail Ltd: EAT 18 Feb 2011

Harrison v Aryman Ltd (Admissibility of Evidence): EAT 27 Aug 2019

Following her resignation, the Claimant presented a claim form. The Respondent had written her a letter in August 2016 proposing that her employment be terminated on the basis of a settlement agreement. Her case was that this was a reaction to the news that she was pregnant, that there had been a history of various … Continue reading Harrison v Aryman Ltd (Admissibility of Evidence): EAT 27 Aug 2019

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Marks: EAT 23 Nov 2010

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL Reasonableness of dismissal S.98A(2) ERA Claimant dismissed for gross misconduct. Employment Tribunal found unfair dismissal but (a) placed the burden of proof on the Respondent instead of applying a neutral burden of proof. It also misunderstood s.98A(2) ERA 1996; failed to make a Polkey finding; failed to make a finding on contributory … Continue reading Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Marks: EAT 23 Nov 2010

Bullock v Norfolk County Council: EAT 24 Jan 2011

bullock_norfolkEAT11 EAT RIGHT TO BE ACCOMPANIED The Employment Tribunal did not err in holding that the Claimant, a foster carer, was not a worker within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and 1999. Accordingly she could not claim the right to trade union representation pursuant to section 10 of the Employment Rights Act … Continue reading Bullock v Norfolk County Council: EAT 24 Jan 2011

Zaman and Others v Kozee Sleep Products Ltd (T/A Dorlux Beds UK): EAT 19 Nov 2010

EAT TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS – Consultation and other informationThe cap on ‘a week’s pay’ under s.227 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 does not apply to awards for compensation under reg. 15 (8) of TUPE for breach of the information and consultation obligations. Citations: [2010] UKEAT 0312 – 10 – 1911 Links: Bailii Employment Updated: … Continue reading Zaman and Others v Kozee Sleep Products Ltd (T/A Dorlux Beds UK): EAT 19 Nov 2010

Simpson v Endsleigh Insurance Services Ltd and Others: EAT 27 Aug 2010

EAT SEX DISCRIMINATIONBurden of proofPregnancy and discriminationUNFAIR DISMISSAL – Automatically unfair reasonsRegulation 10(3)(a) and Regulation 10(3)(b) of the Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999 must be read together in determining whether there is a suitable available vacancy under Regulation 10(2). Judges: Ansell J Citations: [2010] UKEAT 0544 – 09 – 2708, [2011] ICR 75 Links: … Continue reading Simpson v Endsleigh Insurance Services Ltd and Others: EAT 27 Aug 2010

Ministry of Defence v Wallis and Another: EAT 30 Jul 2010

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Working outside the jurisdiction The Claimants were wives of service personnel working at NATO headquarters in Belgium and in the Netherlands – Because of that status they were eligible for, and they obtained, employment in schools attached to those headquarters – They were dismissed when their husbands’ service came to an … Continue reading Ministry of Defence v Wallis and Another: EAT 30 Jul 2010

Dandpat v The University of Bath and Another: EAT 10 Nov 2009

EAT VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Interim reliefExplanation of meaning of ‘likely’ given in Taplin v C Shippam Ltd [1978] IRLR 450 held not to have been invalidated by SCA Packaging Ltd v Boyle [2009] IRLR 746 and to represent the correct approach in applications under section 128 of Employment Rights Act 1996Observations on nature of evidence … Continue reading Dandpat v The University of Bath and Another: EAT 10 Nov 2009

Ravat v Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd: SCS 22 Jun 2010

The pursuer, living in England was dismissed from a post by the defenders whilst he was working for them in Libya. He claimed unfair dismissal. They said that his employment was not subject to British Law. Held: The employment was governed by UK law. Judges: Lord Osborne, Lord Carloway, Lord Brodie Citations: [2010] ScotCS CSIH … Continue reading Ravat v Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd: SCS 22 Jun 2010

Lezo v OCS Group UK Ltd: EAT 21 May 2010

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Extension of time: reasonably practicableIt was not reasonably practicable for the Claimant to present his unfair dismissal claim in 3 months. But by waiting a further 11 days he went beyond a reasonable period: Employment Rights Act 1996 s111(2). The authorities on ‘reasonably practicable’ for primary limitation, and fault of advisers, … Continue reading Lezo v OCS Group UK Ltd: EAT 21 May 2010

Churchill Insurance Company Ltd v Wilkinson and Others: CA 19 May 2010

The various insured defendants had been driven in the insured vehicles by a non-insured driver. Suffering injury at the negligence of the driver, they recovered variously damages. Their insurance companies sought recovery of the sums paid from their respective insureds under the policy terms, section 151 and under European law. Appeals and cross appeals were … Continue reading Churchill Insurance Company Ltd v Wilkinson and Others: CA 19 May 2010

Ward v Ashkenazi: EAT 22 Mar 2010

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL: Compensation The Employment Tribunal found the Respondent unfairly dismissed the Claimant for raising a question about her statutory rights. She had been employed for 10 weeks and was entitled to one month’s notice. It awarded compensation effectively of 7 weeks’ pay. It found she would have been dismissed within that time in … Continue reading Ward v Ashkenazi: EAT 22 Mar 2010