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
There is no rule of law, to suggest that a sole director and owner of majority of shareholding, could not be an employee of that company, and be entitled to a redundancy payment on the liquidation of the company. ‘If the tribunal considers that the contract is not a sham, it is likely to wish … Continue reading Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Bottrill: CA 12 Feb 1999
There is no rule of law to suggest that a sole director and owner of majority of shareholding could not be an employee and entitled to redundancy payment on the liquidation of the company. ‘The higher courts have taken the view that the issue as to whether a person is or is not an employee … Continue reading Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Bottrill: EAT 28 May 1998
Lord Johnston considered the approach to be taken under section 98A: ‘In seeking to resolve this matter, it is necessary to make two observations of a general nature. In the first place, when an industrial tribunal is addressing the question in the context of remedy, against a background of procedural unfairness, whether a fair procedure … Continue reading Fisher v California Cake and Cookie Co: 1997
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
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
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularityEmployment Judge wrongly purported to decide a claim of unfair dismissal when she had no jurisdiction because sitting alone – Decision revoked on review – Same Judge chairs fresh (full) Tribunal – Application that she recuse herself dismissed.Held: Judge should have recused herself – There was … Continue reading Dorbcrest Homes Ltd v Fishwick: EAT 6 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
EAT TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGSEconomic technical or organisational reasonThe Employment Tribunal erred in taking into account a perceived breach of the consultation requirements of Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 regulation 13(6) in determining that the dismissals of two sample Claimants were unfair within the meaning of Employment Rights Act 1996 section 98(4). No … Continue reading Nationwide Building Society v Benn and Others: EAT 27 Jul 2010
Judges: Peter Clark HHJ Citations: [1997] UKEAT 1213 – 97 – 1012 Links: Bailii Statutes: Employment Rights Act 1996 100(1)(a) Cited by: See Also – Bewry v Cumbria County Council EAT 10-Apr-2002 Appeal against rejection of complaint of unfair dismissal. Held: The appeal failed raising no arguable point of law. . .See Also – Bewry … Continue reading Bewry v Cumbria County Council: EAT 10 Dec 1997
A widow claimed compensation for her husband’s death overseas. Held: The Act did not provide for compensation to be payable. ‘What is the widow’s claim here ? She is claiming, not as a party to the contract, not as claiming any rights under a contract made by her or by any person through whom she … Continue reading Tomalin v S Pearson and Son Ltd: CA 1909
UNLAWFUL DEDUCTION FROM WAGES CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Implied term/variation/construction of term The Claimant was given a small shareholding in her employer as a condition of its sale to the Respondent and sold the shares to them under a Share Purchase Agreement. Part of the consideration for the shares were deferred earn-out shares and loan … Continue reading Nosworthy v Instinctif Partners Ltd: EAT 28 Feb 2019
The claimant stock broking firm sought to recover its uninsured losses after having paid out for what was said to have been negligent advice by the respondent, a self-employed broker working for them. Held: The power to recover such losses were part of the contract with the broker, and the provision did not offend against … Continue reading Charles Stanley and Co Ltd v Adams: QBD 19 Jul 2013
EAT Jurisdictional Points : Extension of Time: Reasonably Practicable – UNLAWFUL DEDUCTION FROM WAGES The Respondent employed the Claimants, who were members of the GMB. In order to avoid redundancies, the Respondent and GMB entered into an agreement which required the GMB to put a proposal to its members for a temporary reduction of working … Continue reading Abercrombie and Others v Aga Rangemaster Ltd: EAT 10 Oct 2012
Onus of Establishing Reason for Dismissal EAT Unfair Dismissal: Reason for Dismissal Including Substantial Other Reason – – Reasonableness of dismissal CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Wrongful dismissal Unfair dismissal – reason for dismissal – section 98(1) and (2) Employment Rights Act 1996 – burden of proof and evidential basis for decision – reasonableness of dismissal … Continue reading Dye v Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust: EAT 14 Sep 2016
Reverend Sharpe applied for the post of Rector of Teme Valley South. The right to present (or nominate) a member of the clergy to this living was vested in Mr and Mrs Miles but a person could not be nominated without the Bishop’s approval, which was . .
