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

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

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

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Automatically unfair reasons Public Interest Disclosure Section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 inadmissible reason for dismissal – burden of proof – whether Protected Disclosures – case remitted to same Employment Tribunal for further consideration. Judges: His Honour Judge Clark Citations: [2007] UKEAT 0516 – 06 – 0203, UKEAT/0516/06, [2007] … Continue reading Dr Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd: EAT 2 Mar 2007

The claimant said his dismissal had been automatically unfair under section 106(a) which protected him as a whistleblower. The court was asked whether any disclosure had to relate to an actual criminal offence, or otherwise what would be sufficient. The claimant had reported a failure by the college to act on reports that another lecturer … Continue reading Babula v Waltham Forest College: CA 7 Mar 2007

Liability of employee for unfair dismissal of co-worker under whistleblower protection. Citations: [2018] EWCA Civ 2321 Links: Bailii Statutes: Employment Rights Act 1996 103A Jurisdiction: England and Wales Employment Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.625967

The employee was a whistleblower, but her manager in response bullied her and dismissed her on the grounds of alleged poor performance. J suffered stress and was away from work and unable to defend herself. The decision maker, acting honestly dismissed her. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal holding that that a tribunal required … Continue reading Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti: SC 27 Nov 2019

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Automatically unfair reasonsBurden of proving the ‘whistleblowing’ reason for dismissal under s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996 lies on the employee who has insufficient continuous service to bring a claim of ordinary unfair dismissal. Smith v Hayle applied.However, the case was not decided by this Employment Tribunal on the burden of proof. … Continue reading Ross v Eddie Stobart Ltd (Unfair Dismissal : Automatically Unfair Reasons): EAT 8 Aug 2013

jafri_ssjEAT2013 EAT Unfair Dismissal : Reasonableness of Dismissal Unfair dismissal – attitude of third party making continued employment of employee impossible – whether tribunal considered whether employer took into account possible injustice to employee – whether errors of fact on part of tribunal undermined overall conclusion that employer had done what it could to prevent … Continue reading Jafri v Secretary of State for Justice and Another: EAT 20 Feb 2013

Appeal against refusal by the Employment Judge to strike out Dr Armes’ claims under sections 47B, 103A and 100(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996. The application to strike out was made on the basis that Dr Armes had no reasonable prospect of establishing that his pleaded disclosures were ‘qualifying disclosures’ within the meaning of section 43B(1), … Continue reading Twist DX Ltd and Others v Armes and Others (Whisleblowing, Protected Disclosures): EAT 23 Oct 2020

UNFAIR DISMISSAL WHISTLEBLOWING, PROTECTED DISCLOSURES CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT The employment tribunal found that the Claimant had been unfairly dismissed, contrary to section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (‘the ERA’), and wrongfully dismissed, but had not been automatically unfairly dismissed, contrary to section 103A of the ERA. On the Respondent employer’s appeal from the … Continue reading University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust v Reuser (Unfair Dismissal – Whistleblowing, Protected Disclosures): EAT 1 May 2020

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

The employee claimed that the behaviour which gave rise to her dismissal was a protected disclosure, and that her motive was irrelevant. Held: The fact that what was disclosed was true was not conclusive to protect the disclosure. The court could look to motive, and a bad motive might defeat the protection even if the … Continue reading Street v Derbyshire Unemployed Workers Centre: EAT 22 Sep 2003

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

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

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

In a case on the issue of sufficiency of qualifying service for bringing an ordinary case of unfair dismissal, the court considered the allocation of the burden of proof in employment cases. Held: The burden is upon he who is seeking to rely upon the exception to bring himself within it. The court also considered … Continue reading Smith v Hayle Town Council: CA 1978

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – AmendmentJURISDICTIONAL POINTS – 2002 Act and pre-action requirementsJudge refused permission to Claimant to amend claim form to include claim under s. 103A of Employment Rights Act 1996Held that Judge erred in law by failing properly to analyse the extent to which the proposed amendment would extend the scope of the … Continue reading Evershed v New Star Asset Management: EAT 31 Jul 2009

EAT VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION: Whistleblowing / Protected disclosure Employment Tribunal did not go beyond the remit directed by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in further considering the Claimant’s claims after remission to it further consideration by the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Citations: [2008] UKEAT 0088 – 08 – 2005 Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: See Also … Continue reading Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council v Scanlon: EAT 20 May 2008

The reason adduced by the union for the dismissal of the climant was found by the Tribunal on the facts not to be the true reason for dismissal, the true reason being the union executive committee’s political antipathy to Mr Brady. Held: It was highly arguable that a finding that disciplinary proceedings had been commenced … Continue reading Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen v Brady: EAT 31 Mar 2006

The claimant appealed against the dismissal of his unfair dismissal application. Not having two years continuous employment he had claimed the protection of section 100 as a whistleblower, but the Tribunal had found that there had been a Health and Safety Committee where he could have made known his concerns about the long hours being … Continue reading Jackson v ICS Group of Companies Ltd: EAT 22 Jan 1998

The employee claimed that he had been unlawfully dismissed, and that his dismissal broke the protection given to whistleblowers under the Act. The employer appealed. Held: In such claims it was necessary first for the tribunal to establish whether it had jurisdiction, by testing whether a protected disclosure had taken place, and whether that had … Continue reading ALM Medical Services Limited v Bryan Bladon: CA 26 Jul 2002

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Amendment PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Case management UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Automatically unfair reasons The Claimant, who had less than two years’ service, had sought to pursue claims of unfair dismissal and discrimination before the Employment Tribunal. In resisting an application to strike out his claim of unfair dismissal, the Claimant had … Continue reading Andruhovics v Sapient Ltd: EAT 18 May 2018

The employee alleged that he had been dismissed for trade Union activities. The Industrial Tribunal held that he had the burden of proving that. The EAT disagreed. Held: The appeal against the decision of the EAT failed.Griffiths LJ said: ‘If an employer produces evidence to the Tribunal that appears to show that the reason for … Continue reading Maund v Penwith District Council: CA 1984

This appeal concerns the proper construction of section 43K (whistleblowers) and the application of that section to a certain category of doctors operating in the health service. Held: The appeal succeeded. Judges: Gloster VP CA, Elias LJJ, Moylan J Citations: [2017] EWCA Civ 329, [2017] WLR(D) 307, [2017] ICR 917, [2017] IRLR 623 Links: Bailii, … Continue reading Day v Health Education England and Others: CA 5 May 2017

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Automatically unfair reasons Protected disclosure – automatic unfair dismissal – section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996 Having found that the Claimant had been constructively dismissed and that the Respondent had not put forward any reason that was capable of being fair for the purposes of section 98 ERA; the Claimant’s dismissal … Continue reading Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust v Wyeth (Unfair Dismissal: Automatically Unfair Reasons): EAT 12 Jun 2015

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Automatically unfair reasons The Claimant claimed that she had been automatically unfairly dismissed for making protected disclosures within the meaning of Employment Rights Act 1996 section 43. Save in respect of disclosures to HMRC, the Employment Tribunal erred in failing to make findings as to whether she had made qualifying disclosures … Continue reading Schaathun v Executive and Business Aviation Support Ltd (Unfair Dismissal: Automatically Unfair Reasons): EAT 30 Jun 2015

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Contributory fault – Polkey deduction – The Employment Tribunal found the Claimant’s dismissal to be unfair because the principal reason was that the employee made a protected disclosure (section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996). Initially it made a basic award of andpound;3,325 and a compensatory award of andpound;30,616. The … Continue reading Hamer v Kaltz Ltd: EAT 4 Aug 2014

EAT Practice and Procedure: Disclosure – Disclosure – Rule 31 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 – ET Case Management Various Orders for specific disclosure had been made by the ET as part of its case management of the Appellant’s claims of unfair dismissal (section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996 (‘ERA’)) and automatic … Continue reading Gray v Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith Ltd: EAT 16 Mar 2016

The employers were a well known roofing and tiling firm, Marley Tiles . The employer sought to impose post employment restrictions including a restriction on canvassing soliciting or dealing with customers in the whole of Devon and Cornwall. Within that area the plaintiffs had 2,500 customers. The covenant against soliciting was also a covenant against … Continue reading Marley Tile Co Ltd v Shaw: CA 1980