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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
The parties disputed whether Mr Smith had been an employee of or worker with the company so as to bring associated rights into play. The contract required the worker to provide an alternate worker to cover if necessary. Held: The company’s appeal failed. Mr Smith was a worker: ‘there were features of the contract which … Continue reading Pimlico Plumbers Ltd and Another v Smith: SC 13 Jun 2018
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Continuity of employment The Employment Judge correctly analysed the circumstances leading to the termination of the Claimant’s first contract and the start of the second with an associated employer and found a gap of one week so destroying continuity under Employment Rights Act 1996 s 212(1). But there was no consideration … Continue reading Holt v EB Security Services: EAT 2 Mar 2011
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS: Claim in time and effective date of termination A contract of employment provided for notice in writing. The Employment Judge did not err when he found the effective date of termination for Employment Rights Act 1996 s 111 was on the day oral communication of dismissal was given and received. Statement of … Continue reading Abbey v Associated Foreign Exchange Ltd and Another: EAT 13 Mar 2009
The claimants had been detained under the 1971 Act, after completing sentences of imprisonment pending their return to their home countries under deportations recommended by the judges at trial, or chosen by the respondent. They challenged as unlawful the respondent’s, at first unpublished, policy introduced in 2006, that by default, those awaiting deportation should be … Continue reading Lumba (WL) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 23 Mar 2011
(Northern Ireland) The applicant sought judicial review of a decision not to disclose documents held by the respondent to him saying that the refusal was disproportionate and infringed his human rights. The respondents said that the documents were provided on an assurance of confidentiality. Held: Disclosure rules are different in judicial review proceedings since such … Continue reading Tweed v Parades Commission for Northern Ireland: HL 13 Dec 2006
The claimant had ‘neither pleaded nor shown any damage to him during the course of his employment which resulted from his employer’s conduct. The only damage which is demonstrated is that which followed from his dismissal and, arguably, the manner of his dismissal. That damage if it exists has been held in Johnson to be … Continue reading Boardman v Copeland Borough Council: CA 13 Jun 2001
The freedom for a claimant in registered design right to frame his claim, as to whether he asserts an infringement of the entire design, or limits it to the section infringed, is important. Laddie J said: ‘This means that the proprietor can trim his design right claim to most closely match what he believes the … Continue reading Ocular Sciences Ltd v Aspect Vision Care Ltd: ChD 11 Nov 1996
The applicant appealed striking out of her employment claims against the respondent. She had been made bankrupt after lodging her appeal to the EAT, and the EAT had held that she lacked standing to pursue her claim. Held: Employment claims are in their essential nature personal and not proprietary, and did not vest in the … Continue reading Grady v HM Prison Service: CA 11 Apr 2003
The claimant sought repayment of sums he claimed were unlawfully deducted from his salary. He had been off sick for an extended period, and had been paid only half salary. He said that the injury was a qualifying industrial accident. Medical evidence suggested it related back to degeneration which started before he had begun to … Continue reading Mohammed v London Borough of Camden: EAT 11 Oct 2001
The court had to consider a permanent placement of a child with a view to adoption in oposition to the natural parents’ wishes. Held: Particular weight should be attached to the best interests of the child, which may override those of the parent: ‘These measures were particularly far-reaching in that they totally deprived the applicant … Continue reading Johansen v Norway: ECHR 7 Aug 1996
An employee at an educational establishment told management that he intended to undergo gender reassignment. He was given notice of dismissal. Held: The scope of the Directive was not confined to discrimination based on the fact that a person was of one or other sex but also extended to discrimination arising from the gender reassignment … Continue reading P v S and Cornwall County Council: ECJ 30 Apr 1996
An employee’s job ceased, but he continued to be employed by the same employer on different tasks, but the new arrangement was void as ultra vires. The question arose as to whether his employment had been terminated at the time of the change in such a way as to affect his pension rights under the … Continue reading Eastbourne Borough Council v James Foster: CA 11 Jul 2001
The appellants resisted disclosure to the revenue of advice it had received. It claimed legal advice privilege (LAP), though the advice was from its accountants. Held: (Lords Sumption and Clarke dissenting) LAP applies to all communications passing between a client and its lawyers, acting in their professional capacity, in connection with the provision of legal … Continue reading Prudential Plc and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax and Another: SC 23 Jan 2013
The appellant, a part time recorder challenged his exclusion from pension arrangements. Held: The appeal was allowed. No objective justification has been shown for departing from the basic principle of remunerating part-timers pro rata temporis. ‘The reality is that recorders are expected to observe the terms and conditions of their appointment, and that they may … Continue reading O’Brien v Ministry of Justice: SC 6 Feb 2013
Minister was not an employee The claimant asserted unfair dismissal. The Conference said that as an ordained minister she was not an employee, and was outwith the jurisdiction of such a claim. Held: The Conference’s appeal succeeded (Baroness Hale dissenting). The essence of the arrangement between the Conference and a minister lay in the constitution … Continue reading Methodist Conference v Preston: SC 15 May 2013
Rehearing/Review – Little Difference on Appeal The appellant asked the Court to reverse a decision on the facts reached in the lower court. Held: The appeal failed (Majority decision). The court’s approach should be the same whether the case was dealt with as a rehearing or as a review. Tanfern was limited to appeals from … Continue reading Assicurazioni Generali Spa v Arab Insurance Group (BSC): CA 13 Nov 2002
EAT (Unlawful Deduction From Wages) CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Damages for breach of contract The Employment Judge’s findings of fact and conclusions on the reason for dismissal and its fairness were permissible in light of the evidence and disclose no error of law. They are adequately reasoned. However, the Employment Judge misdirected himself in law … Continue reading Davies v Droylsden Academy: EAT 11 Oct 2016
EAT Unfair Dismissal: Reasonableness of Dismissal – Unfair dismissal – conduct dismissal taking into account previous final written warning – fairness of dismissal – section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996 The Claimant had been dismissed by reason of his conduct in making a false computer submission taken together with an extant final written warning for … Continue reading Perrys Motor Sales Ltd v Edwards: EAT 11 Nov 2016
EAT Jurisdictional Points: Extension of Time: Reasonably Practicable – The Claimant instructed solicitors in relation to an unfair dismissal claim. Time for presenting the claim was to expire on 25/10/15. On 08/10/15 the solicitors advised him to seek new solicitors in relation to the claim but gave no advice about the need to present a … Continue reading Sheredes School v Davies: EAT 13 Sep 2016
The claimant in the employment tribunal was a litigant in person. Upon consideration of her claim form under rule 12 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, a judge determined that there were two complaints, being of (a) ordinary unfair dismissal, in respect of which the claimant lacked qualifying service, and which was dismissed; and (b) … Continue reading Clarke v The Restaurant Group (UK) Ltd (Practice and Procedure): EAT 20 Jul 2021
Jurisdictional Points : Working Outside The Jurisdiction – Identity of employer: the claimant had a contract dated 1998 with a company, said no longer to exist. The respondents admitted that he was employed but there was a dispute by whom. The ET found that he was employed by the fourth respondent. It was argued by … Continue reading Wittenberg v Sunset Personnel Services Ltd and Others: EAT 21 Nov 2013
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs The Employment Judge came to an impermissible conclusion on the facts in finding that the Claimant had asked the Tribunal to make a Norwegian interpreter available at the Full Hearing. Her email was plainly an enquiry if it would be possible for an interpreter to be present. Further, she was … Continue reading Schaathun v Executive and Business Aviation Support Ltd (Practice and Procedure: Costs): EAT 13 Jul 2015
EAT Jurisdictional Points: Worker, Employee or Neither – Whether a GP, whose services were provided to the Trust through a Cooperative, was a worker under section 230(3)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996. The Employment Tribunal was entitled to find that he was not. Whether the Claimant had abandoned an argument that he was a worker under … Continue reading Suhail v Barking Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals and Another: EAT 11 Jun 2015
The two applicants were serving life sentences for murder. Each sought damages for the unlawful withdrawal of their rights to vote in elections, and the failure of the British parliament to take steps to comply with the judgment. Held: The appeals failed.Lord Mance summarised the reasons for his conclusions: ‘(A) Human Rights Act In respect … Continue reading Chester, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: SC 16 Oct 2013
Closed Material before Supreme Court Under the 2009 order, the appellant Bank had been effectively shut down as to its operations within the UK. It sought to use the appeal procedure, and now objected to the use of closed material procedure. The Supreme Court asked itself whether it was possible for the Supreme Court to … Continue reading Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 1): SC 19 Jun 2013
EAT Unfair Dismissal : Reason for Dismissal Including Substantial Other The Claimants were employed as delivery drivers using HGVs. They lived in Manchester but the Respondent depot they had to attend to load up was situated in Wednesbury. Their contracts stipulated that their place of employment was in Wednesbury. The cost of commuting each day … Continue reading Exol Lubricants Ltd v Birch and Another: EAT 13 Nov 2014
EAT Maternity Rights and Parental Leave – Sex discrimination Unfair dismissal Return to work Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999 (MAPL Regs) – regulation 10 – redundancy during maternity leave and entitlement to be offered suitable available vacancy. Equality Act 2010 (EqA) – section 18 – direct discrimination because of pregnancy and maternity Appeal against … Continue reading Sefton Borough Council v Wainwright: EAT 13 Oct 2014
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Conduct – Section 98(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996 In a case where the Claimant had committed (admitted) assaults in the workplace because of his disability (he suffers from a paranoid schizophrenic illness), the ET found that the Respondent had dismissed him because of his having committed acts of gross misconduct and … Continue reading Burdett v Aviva Employment Services Ltd: EAT 14 Nov 2014
EAT Unfair Dismissal : Reasonableness of Dismissal – The Appellant contended that the EAT should lay down general guidance to the effect that an appeal panel decision must be followed by an employer in the absence of exceptional circumstances. He also contended that, if the Respondent was entitled not to follow the decision of the … Continue reading Kisoka v Ratnpinyotip (T/A Rydevale Day Nursery): EAT 11 Dec 2013
EAT S.98A(2) ERA – Unfair dismissal. The Appellant appealed against a finding that it had unfairly dismissed the Respondent. The Employment Tribunal had found that the dismissal was unfair but that in light of section 118, 119, 122 123 of ERA 1996 the Respondent was not entitled to any monetary award, basic or compensatory. The … Continue reading HCL Safety Ltd v Flaherty: EAT 11 Jul 2013
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal Unfair dismissal – redundancy – reduction in number of employees and re-organisation of business – competitive interviews. The Claimant, deputy director of a business run by the Respondent, applied for a new post created in the course of a reduction in number of members of staff. The Respondent, … Continue reading Somerset County Council v H R Chaloner (Unfair Dismissal : Reasonableness of Dismissal): EAT 14 Oct 2013
The claimant alleged infringement by the defendant of assorted intellectual property rights in its database. It provided systems for recovering materials deleted from Nokia mobile phones. Held: ‘the present case is concerned with a collection of numerical data . . the individual items of data are not protected by copyright. It follows that the collection … Continue reading Forensic Telecommunications Services Ltd v West Yorkshire Police and Another: ChD 9 Nov 2011
EAT AGE DISCRIMINATION UNFAIR DISMISSAL Automatically unfair reasons Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason The reason for the Claimant’s dismissal was retirement. The Employment Tribunal erred in holding that the Claimant’s claim of age discrimination failed by application of Regulation 30 of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 when the 2006 regulations had been … Continue reading Copeland v E Coomes (Holdings) Ltd (Age Discrimination): EAT 13 Jun 2013
The employers had dismissed the employee for misconduct. The Tribunal found that the employers had a genuine belief in the misconduct alleged and there had been a reasonable investigation. The real issue was whether it was reasonable to dismiss for the misconduct alleged. The Tribunal found that no reasonable employer would have dismissed the employee … Continue reading Fuller v London Borough of Brent: CA 15 Mar 2011
EAT Victimisation Discrimination : Whistleblowing – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke – Employment Tribunal failed to explain sufficiently their reasoning on the causation issue in s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996 ‘whistle-blowing’ complaint. Case remitted to same ET for reconsideration. Peter Clark J [2013] UKEAT 0279 – 13 – 1102 Bailii Employment Rights Act 1996 … Continue reading Barclays Bank Plc v Mitchell: EAT 11 Feb 2014
The claimants sought a declaration that the restriction on the infliction of corporal punishment in schools infringed their human right of freedom of religion. The schools concerned were Christian schools who believed that moderate corporal discipline was required in order to give expression to their religious beliefs. The respondent argued that the beliefs asserted, whilst … Continue reading Regina (Williamson and Others) v Secretary of State for Education and Employment: CA 12 Dec 2002
amnesty_ahmedEAT2009 EAT RACE DISCRIMINATION – Direct discriminationRACE DISCRIMINATION – Indirect discriminationRACE DISCRIMINATION – Protected by s. 41UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Constructive dismissalClaimant, of (northern) Sudanese ethnic origin, applied for promotion to role of ‘Sudan researcher’ for Amnesty International – Not appointed because Amnesty believed that the appointment of a person of her ethnic origin would compromise … Continue reading Amnesty International v Ahmed: EAT 13 Aug 2009
The court considered whether discriminatory acts after the termination of employment were caught by the respective anti-discrimination Acts. The acts included a failure to give proper references. They pursued claims on the basis of victimisation after their primary discrimination claims. Held: The 1975 and 1976 Acts were similarly phrased and the wording in the 1995 … Continue reading Relaxion Group plc v Rhys-Harper; D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth; Jones v 3M Healthcare Limited and three other actions: HL 19 Jun 2003
The respondent had made an order under the Regulations restricting all persons from dealing with the the claimant bank. The bank applied to have the order set aside. Though the defendant originally believed that the Iranian government owned 80% of the shares, the figure was 20% and soon to be reduced to 15%. It said … Continue reading Bank Mellat v HM Treasury: QBD 11 Jun 2010
The parties had a joint venture agreement which provided that any dispute was to be referred to an arbitrator from the Ismaili community. The claimant said that this method of appointment became void as a discriminatory provision under the 2003 Regulations. The High Court found the appointment to be outwith the provisions, but this was … Continue reading Jivraj v Hashwani: SC 27 Jul 2011
The appellants were teachers in Christian schools who said that the blanket ban on corporal punishment interfered with their religious freedom. They saw moderate physical discipline as an essential part of educating children in a Christian manner. Held: The appeal was dismissed. For Article 9 to be engaged (aside from certain other threshold conditions) the … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for Education and Employment and others ex parte Williamson and others: HL 24 Feb 2005
The claimant was a police sergeant. After many years he had not been promoted. He began proceedings for race discrimination. Whilst those were in course, he applied for a post elsewhere. That force wrote to his own requesting a reference. In the light of the discrimination claim, they were advised not to reply for fear … Continue reading Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan: HL 11 Oct 2001
Car Cleaning nil-hours Contractors were Workers The company contracted with the claimants to work cleaning cars. The company appealed against a finding that contrary to the explicit provisions of the contracts, they were workers within the Regulations and entitled to holiday pay and associated benefits. The contracts were ‘nil hours’ contracts neither requiring nor entitling … Continue reading Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher and Others: SC 27 Jul 2011
The parties disputed the effect of the NHS terms for employment of doctors, and in particularly the provisions as to maintenance of pay grade. The doctor had become a consultant trust grade doctor in oral surgery, but was then required to retrain from her qualification as a dentist. She said that she was entitled to … Continue reading Barts and The London NHS Trust v Verma: SC 24 Apr 2013
Proper Reply Opportunity Required on Deportation (Grand Chamber) The claimant was an Indian citizen who had been granted indefinite leave to remain in this country but whose activities as a Sikh separatist brought him to the notice of the authorities both in India and here. The Home Secretary of the day decided that he should … Continue reading Chahal v The United Kingdom: ECHR 15 Nov 1996
Car Valeters contracts misdescribed their Duties The claimants worked cleaning cars for the appellants. They said that as workers they were entitled to holiday pay. The appellant said they were self-employed. Held: The contract purported to give rights which were not genuine, and the employment judge was entitled to reach that conclusion. The contractors were … Continue reading Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher and Others: CA 13 Oct 2009
Uninsured Driver Not Guilty of Causing Death The appellant though an uninsured driver, was driving without fault when another vehicle veered across the road. The other driver died from his injuries, and the appellant convicted of causing his death whilst uninsured. At trial he succeeded in arguing that he had not caused the death, but … Continue reading Hughes, Regina v: SC 31 Jul 2013
The claimant was a post operative male to female trans-sexual. She claimed that her human rights were infringed when she was still treated as a man for National Insurance contributions purposes, where she continued to make payments after the age at which a woman would have ceased payments thus causing harassment. A second claimant again … Continue reading Goodwin v The United Kingdom: ECHR 11 Jul 2002
The claimants complained of the system where they were obliged to work for free to claim Jobseekers Allowance. Held: The 2011 Regulations were required to specify the schemes under which the claimants were to claim. Instead, the regulations had named a scheme of work and the details of it were set out elsewhere. This did … Continue reading Reilly and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 12 Feb 2013
The House was asked as to the capacity of a limited company to sue for damage to its reputation, where it had no trading activity within the jurisdiction, and as to the extent of the Reynolds defence. The defendants/appellants had published an article which was said falsely to associate the claimants with terrorist activity. Held: … Continue reading Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl: HL 11 Oct 2006
Former employees had obtained a protective award against the company for failing to consult on the impending redundancies and submitted proofs of debt to the liquidator who sought guidance from the court. The judge had held that since the Act provided only one remedy, the protective awards were not provable. Held: The appeal was allowed. … Continue reading Haine v Secretary of State for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and Another; Day v Haine: CA 11 Jun 2008
bateman_asdaEAT2010 EAT CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT: Incorporation into contract Asda wished to ensure that their entire store staff were employed on the same pay and work structure and this meant that those on the old regime had to transfer to a new regime. Some 9,330 employees agreed, but some did not. So when the new regime … Continue reading Bateman and Others v Asda Stores Ltd: EAT 11 Feb 2010
The court considered the calculation of guarantee payments to be paid under the 1996 Act to employees who have been laid off or placed on short-time working because of a downturn in business. Sir Terence Etherton Ch, Kitchin, Underhill LJJ [2013] EWCA Civ 1148 Bailii Employment Rights Act 1996 England and Wales Citing: Appeal from … Continue reading Abercrombie and Others v Aga Rangemaster Ltd: CA 11 Oct 2013
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – S. 98A (2) Employment Rights Act DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Disability related discrimination DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Reasonable adjustments DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Compensation Claimant goes off sick following incident of alleged offensive behaviour by manager – Existing mental health difficulties exacerbated – Employers fail, despite recommendation from occupational health department, to carry out … Continue reading Tameside Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v Mylott: EAT 11 Mar 2011
The parties disputed the effective date of termination of the claimant’s employment. Was it the date on which the letter notifying her was sent, or was it on the day she received it. She had been dimissed without notice, and the date was the date on which it took effect. The court was asked whether … Continue reading Gisda Cyf v Barratt: SC 13 Oct 2010
Right to be Forgotten is not absolute The two claimants separately had criminal convictions from years before. They objected to the defendant indexing third party web pages which included personal data in the form of information about those convictions, which were now spent. The claims were in Data Protection and the common law tort of … Continue reading NT 1 and NT 2 v Google Llc: QBD 13 Apr 2018
The court considered whether a teacher employed by the Secretary of State to teach in one of its European Schools was entitled to protection against unfair dismissal. Held: The claimants’ appeals were allowed and the cases remitted to the Employment Tribunals. The employments fell within the exeptions governing employment abroad identified in Lawsn -v- Serco. … Continue reading Duncombe and Others v Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (No 2): SC 15 Jul 2011
The respondent was employed by the appellant. He was resident in GB, and was based here, but much work was overseas. At the time of his dismissal he was working in Libya. The company denied that UK law applied. He alleged unfair dismissal. Held: The company’s appeal failed. The details that he was dismissed by … Continue reading Ravat v Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd: SC 8 Feb 2012
The claimants had been employed by a local authority and then transferred to the respondents. They had had the benefit that their terms of employment were subject to collective agreement. The respondent was not part of the negotiation of later . .
A contract for services, which required the contractor to provide an alternate worker in case of sickness, could not be a contract of employment. Such a clause could not be said to require the services to be provided personally.
Mr Tanton . .
The claimant pursued Employment Tribunal proceedings against the Immigration Service when his security clearance was withdrawn. The Tribunal allowed the respondent to use a closed material procedure under which it was provided with evidence unseen . .
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
glasson_bexleyEAT0414 EAT Unlawful Deduction From Wages – CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Incorporation into contract The Employment Tribunal, in a sufficiently reasoned decision, was entitled on the evidence to conclude that: (i) Payments made to the Appellant, between April 2007 and July 2011, for performing additional duties, were made under the Respondent’s ‘honorarium’ scheme. (ii) They … Continue reading Glasson v London Borough of Bexley: EAT 10 Apr 2014
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
An employer’s express right to transfer an employee may be qualified by the obligation of mutual trust and confidence. Citations: [1989] IRLR 507 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Johnson v Unisys Ltd HL 23-Mar-2001 The claimant contended for a common law remedy covering the same ground as the statutory right available to … Continue reading United Bank Ltd v Akhtar: 1989
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
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio A claim was made for the price of goods which the plaintiff sold to the defendant in Dunkirk, knowing that the defendant’s purpose was to smuggle the goods into England. The plaintiff was met with a defence of illegality. Held: The defence failed. Knowledge on the part of the … Continue reading Holman v Johnson: 5 Jul 1775
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
The applicant had left on maternity leave. Before leaving, her salary had been increased, but the increase was not back-dated to any part of the period over which the regulations required her average earnings to be calculated for statutory maternity pay. She asserted discrimination, and unlawful deductions from her wages. Should her case be referred … Continue reading Alabaster v Woolwich Plc, Secretary of State for Social Security: CA 26 Feb 2002
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
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
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
Lord Cairns said: ‘A reason for the dismissal of an employee is a set of facts known to the employer, or it may be of beliefs held by him, which cause him to dismiss the employee. If at the time of his dismissal the employer gives a reason for it, that is no doubt evidence, … Continue reading Abernethy v Mott Hay and Anderson: CA 1974
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
