Employees notice of intention to return to work after maternity leave need not be given in writing. An ambiguous Act interpreted to purposively accord with European law under which made. Citations: Times 10-Jun-1998 Statutes: Employment Rights Act 1996 80(1) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Employment Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.82787
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 had been dismissed. He said the manner of his dismissal had caused him to suffer a mental breakdown, and claimed for loss of earnings. He asserted a duty on an employer not to dismiss him in such a way as to infringe the duty of trust and confidence. He succeeded in a claim … Continue reading Johnson v Unisys Limited: CA 4 Dec 1998
The transfer of an undertaking involved a series of acts which need not occur at the same time and the time of such transfer must be construed flexibly to reflect the period of time over which the transfer actually occurs. Citations: Times 10-Sep-1998, Gazette 30-Sep-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 1294, [1998] IRLR 577, [1998] 4 All … Continue reading Clark Tokeley Ltd (T/a Spell Brook Ltd) v Oakes and others: CA 27 Jul 1998
The claimant had been unfairly dismissed but in addition to this employment she had also lost her earnings from a private practice as an aerobics teacher at the same facility where she was employed. She had been awarded damages for the employment loss, but not the rest. Held: The court did not state as a … Continue reading Jones v Lingfield Leisure Plc: CA 18 Jun 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
Women had taken extended maternity leave, but having followed the procedures, had been unable for illness to return to work on the day they had notified. The employer then asserted that the claimants had resigned. The EAT had confirm that they had not been unfairly dismissed. Held: The legislation provided ‘special protection for the security … Continue reading Kwik Save Stores Limited v Greaves; Crees v Royal London Mutual Insurance Society Limited: CA 20 Jan 1998
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
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
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
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 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
All information available to an employer at the date of the termination of the employment relationship is relevant when considering the fairness of dismissal, and also any information becoming available during the course of, for example, an internal appeal, even post-termination, is relevant. An employer may be considered to have acted unfairly if he refuses … Continue reading West Midlands Co-operative Society v Tipton: HL 1986
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
The 1978 Directive required consultation in the case of collective redundancies. Acts had incorrectly incorporated this requirement into English law. The error was corrected in the 1995 Regulations. Held: Anything is ‘related to’ a Community obligation so long as it is not distinct, separate or divorced from it. The 1995 Regulations were valid.Otton LJ said: … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry ex parte Unison: 1996
The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for unfair dismissal and similar, the decision being made that the applications were out of time. He also complained that the hearing had effectively heard been in private. Held: No arguable point of law had been demonstrated and the appeal failed. Judges: Peter Clark HHJ Citations: [1998] … Continue reading Storer v British Gas Plc: EAT 16 Oct 1998
The applicants worked under an arrangement where they received considerable payments additional to their basic pay for compulsory overtime, but the holiday pay was calculated by the employer on the basic pay. Held: The 1998 Regulations were intended to protect workers, but the directive did not require any payment over and above the contractual entitlement. … Continue reading D Bamsey and others v Albon Engineering and Manufacturing Plc: CA 25 Mar 2004
Citations: [1998] UKEAT 863 – 98 – 0110 Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: See Also – Foley v Post Office EAT 1-Mar-1999 . .See Also – Foley v Post Office; HSBC Bank Plc (Formerly Midland Bank Plc) v Madden CA 31-Jul-2000 When an Employment Tribunal looked at whether a dismissal was reasonable, … Continue reading Foley v Post Office: EAT 1 Oct 1998
Citations: [1998] UKEAT 484 – 97 – 1902, EAT/484/97 Links: Bailii Statutes: Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Cited – BET Catering Services Ltd v Ball and others EAT 28-Nov-1996 Mrs Ball was an employee of a London Borough whose contract incorporated the NJC conditions. Following her TUPE … Continue reading Glendale Grounds Management v Bradley: EAT 19 Feb 1998
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
Architects proposed a system of flexible drains for a site, but the contractors persuaded them to accept rigid drains which once laid proved inadequate at considerable cost. The local authority had permitted the departure from the plans. Held: The true question to found negligence was whether the particular defendant owed the particular plaintiff a duty … Continue reading Peabody Donation Fund v Sir Lindsay Parkinson and Co Ltd: HL 18 Oct 1983
The Court found the probationer police constable to have been unlawfully induced to resign, but the court could not order his reinstatement. A power must be exercised by the precise person or body stated in the statute. Though courts may review the way in which decisions are reached, they will respect the margin of appreciation … Continue reading Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v Evans: HL 1982
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 claimant, who was disabled, said that his Article 8 rights were infringed because, in breach of Italian law, there were no facilities to enable him to get to the sea when he went on holiday. Held: ‘Private life . . includes a person’s physical and psychological integrity; the guarantee afforded by Article 8 of … Continue reading Botta v Italy: ECHR 24 Feb 1998
To exclude a child from school for as long as his parents refused to let him be beaten ‘cannot be described as reasonable and in any event falls outside the State’s power of regulation in article 2’. The Convention protects only religions and philosophies which are ‘worthy of respect in a ‘democratic society’ and are … Continue reading Campbell and Cosans v The United Kingdom: ECHR 25 Feb 1982
A Local Authority had a duty of care to a fostering family when allocating children. A child was known to have a history of sexual abuse and was fostered with a family with other children, and no warning had been given.Foster parents sued the council for breach of contract and for alleged negligence for breach … Continue reading W 1-6 v Essex County Council and Another: CA 2 Apr 1998
The solicitor, acting in a land purchase transaction for his lay client and the plaintiff, had unwittingly misled the claimant by telling the claimant that the purchasers were providing the balance of the purchase price themselves without recourse to further borrowing when he knew that they were using an overdraft to obtain further funding. The … Continue reading Mothew (T/a Stapley and Co) v Bristol and West Building Society: CA 24 Jul 1996
Sperm which had been taken from a dying and unconscious man may not be used for the later insemination of his surviving wife. The Act required his written consent. Held: Community Law does not assist the Applicant. The question had been considered in Parliament, and allowing for the limitations on the powers of courts exercising … Continue reading Regina v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority ex parte DB: Admn 17 Oct 1996
The House faced two questions regarding the protection given by the Regulations: ‘whether the dismissed employee can compel the transferee to employ him or whether he is given the right to enforce as against the transferee such remedies under national law as he could have enforced against the transferor.’ and ‘whether, if despite dismissal they … Continue reading Wilson and Others v St Helens Borough Council; Meade and Another v British Fuels Ltd: HL 29 Oct 1998
Where an employee had taken extended maternity leave but was then unable to return for post-natal depression, but she was dismissed, the resumption of her contract on issuing her notice of intention to return revived her sickness rights anew.The applicant had had her claims of unfair dismissal and sex discrimination had been rejected by the … Continue reading Halfpenny v IGE Medical Systems Ltd: CA 18 Dec 1998
An employee resigned for his own financial purposes and was re-employed after the weekend. Later dismissed, his employment was said to be continuous. Held: It was difficult to contract out of statutory rights when it came to an issue of jurisdiction. Intermediate employment not enough. Citations: Times 31-Aug-1998 Statutes: Employment Rights Act 1996 212 Employment … Continue reading Carrington v Harwich Duck Co Ltd: EAT 31 Aug 1998
Re-statement of character of contracts of employment and services and difference. The form of contract is important but not conclusive. It is necessary to look at the terms of the contract as a whole concentrating on the substantive rights and obligations of the parties and decide whether they are more or less strongly indicative of … Continue reading Barnett v Brabyn (Inspector of Taxes): ChD 5 Jul 1996
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
The employee was unfairly dismissed for redundancy. He was given 5 weeks pay in lieu, a statutory redundancy payment and a severance payment under the employers’ own scheme. He did not obtain another job until well after his period of notice had expired. The tribunal assessed compensation on the basis that the factory was to … Continue reading Babcock FATA Ltd v Addison: CA 1987
The claimant was a superintendent registrar of Births Deaths and Marriages. His union instructed him not to conduct weddings on Saturdays. He had been told that if he failed to perform his full range of duties on a Saturday (including marriages), he would not be required to attend for work and would not be paid. … Continue reading Miles v Wakefield Metropolitan District Council: HL 1987
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
(Hong Kong) The claimant deposited money with a licensed deposit taker, regulated by the Commissioner. He lost his money when the deposit taker went into insolvent liquidation. He said the regulator was responsible when it should have known of the difficulties. Held: The requirements for a duty of care were a foreseeability of harm, and … Continue reading Yuen Kun-Yeu v Attorney-General of Hong Kong: PC 1987
The applicant was refused a grant of parental leave allowance in 1989. At that time parental leave allowance was available only to mothers. The applicant complained that this violated article 14 taken together with article 8. Held: The application was dismissed. the court noted that, as society moved towards a more equal sharing of responsibilities … Continue reading Petrovic v Austria: ECHR 27 Mar 1998
A statement made by a politician as to his intentions on a particular matter if elected could not create a legitimate expectation as regards the delivery of the promise after elected, even where the promise would directly affect individuals, and the costs of a child’s education. Any consequences of a failure to keep a promise … Continue reading Regina v Department of Education and Employment ex parte Begbie: CA 20 Aug 1999
The applicant was a Turkish national resident in Austria. While working there he had paid unemployment insurance contributions. At a stage when he was unemployed he applied for an advance on his pension in the form of emergency assistance. That was available under the material Austrian legislation, but one of the conditions was that the … Continue reading Gaygusuz v Austria: ECHR 16 Sep 1996
A decision at committal to return an accused for trial is susceptible to judicial review where committal was based solely on inadmissible evidence or was based on evidence not reasonably capable of supporting it. The committal was quashed.The ‘Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court has normally in judicial review proceedings jurisdiction to quash a … Continue reading Regina v Bedwellty Justices Ex Parte Williams: HL 18 Sep 1996
EAT CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Implied term/variation/construction of term The Employment Tribunal had erred in concluding that a term in the letters of appointment of the Claimants enabled the employer to vary the contract unilaterally; the term was unclear and probably ambiguous – Wandsworth London Borough Council v D’Silva [1998] IRLR 193 and Security and … Continue reading Norman and Another v National Audit Office (Contract of Employment : Implied Term/Variation/Construction of Term): EAT 15 Dec 2014
COURT (PLENARY) The complainant asserted that his telephone conversation had been tapped on the authority of a warrant signed by the Secretary of State, but that there was no system to supervise such warrants, and that it was not therefore in ‘accordance with law’. The taps were based on a non-binding and unpublished directive from … Continue reading Malone v The United Kingdom: ECHR 2 Aug 1984
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 : Reason for Dismissal Including Substantial Other Reason – Reasonableness of dismissal The Employment Judge did not err in holding that the dismissal of the Claimant for refusing to agree to a rescheduling of her working hours was a dismissal for some other substantial reason within the meaning of section 98(1)(b) of … Continue reading Taylor and Others (T/A Partners In The Cornerstone Practice) v Crockford: EAT 28 Feb 2014
The employee had been given twelve weeks notice of redundancy dismissal, and was not required to attend work during the notice period, but then worked additional days. A letter was written in November stating ‘you are given 12 weeks’ notice of dismissal from this company with effect from 5.11.79. You will not be expected to … Continue reading Adams v GKN Sankey Ltd: EAT 1980
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
Exercise of Prerogative Power is Reviewable The House considered an executive decision made pursuant to powers conferred by a prerogative order. The Minister had ordered employees at GCHQ not to be members of trades unions. Held: The exercise of a prerogative power of a public nature may be, subject to constraints of national security and … Continue reading Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service: HL 22 Nov 1984
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 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
Nature of Confidentiality in Information The appellant plaintiff company had employed the defendant as sales manager. The contract of employment made no provision restricting use of confidential information. He left to set up in competition. The company now sought to prevent him using confidential information for this purpose. Held: The information and the advantage flowing … Continue reading Faccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler: CA 1986
When a licence is really a tenancy The document signed by the occupier stated that she understood that she had been given a licence, and that she understood that she had not been granted a tenancy protected under the Rent Acts. Exclusive occupation was in fact granted. Held: This was a tenancy not a licence. … Continue reading Street v Mountford: HL 6 Mar 1985
The claimant had been dismissed after it was discovered he had been cautioned for a public homosexual act. He appealed dismissal of his claim saying that the standard of fairness applied was inappropriate with regard to the Human Rights Act, and that the state had a duty to protect him from private acts which breached … Continue reading X v Y (Employment: Sex Offender): CA 28 May 2004
Members of the tribunal must not simply consider whether they personally think that the dismissal is fair and they must not substitute their decision as to what was the right course to adopt for that of the employer. Their proper function is to determine whether the decision to dismiss the employee fell within the band … Continue reading Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones: EAT 29 Jul 1982
No General Liability in Tort for Wrongful Acts The plaintiff had previously constructed an oil supply pipeline from Beira to Mozambique. After Rhodesia declared unilateral independence, it became a criminal offence to supply to Rhodesia without a licence. The plaintiff ceased supply as required, but complained that the defendants had continued to make supplies by … Continue reading Lonrho Ltd v Shell Petroleum Co Ltd (No 2): HL 1 Apr 1981
Contractor and Client Copyrights The plaintiff had contributed a design for a system of classifying and selecting tracks to be played on a radio station. He did so under a consultancy contract. Held: A Joint authorship claim required that the contributor had made some direct contribution to the words appearing in the eventual published item. … Continue reading Robin Ray v Classic FM Plc: PatC 18 Mar 1998
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
Employment Tribunals to Provide Sufficient Reasons Tribunals, when giving their decisions, are required to do no more than to make clear their findings of fact and to answer any question of law raised. Bingham LJ said: ‘It has on a number of occasions been made plain that the decision of an Industrial Tribunal is not … Continue reading Meek v City of Birmingham District Council: CA 18 Feb 1987
The defendant had been convicted, under regulations made under the Act, of smoking in a railway carriage. He sought to challenge the validity of the regulations themselves. He wanted to argue that the power to ban smoking on carriages did not . .
The plaintiffs were French producers of turkeys. They alleged that the Minister revoked their licence to import turkeys into this country by a decision that was ultra vires and motivated by a desire to assist British turkey producers, and that this . .
When considering whether an unfair dismissal claimant was an employee, the tribunal should first establish as a fact the terms of the agreement and then consider whether any of the terms were inherently inconsistent with the existence of a contract . .
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
The process of the company making the claimant redundant had been declared a sham. The company appealed against a decision that even had the correct procedures been followed, the decision would have been the same. The tribunal said that insufficient evidence had been brought to support such an assertion. Held: The appeal was dismissed. The … Continue reading Strand Transport Services Ltd v Whitworth: CA 6 Aug 2009
EAT Four employees successfully established before the Employment Tribunal that they had been unfairly dismissed for redundancy. The Tribunal found that there had been procedural defects. In particular the assessments in the redundancy exercise had been inadequate and subjective. The Tribunal considered whether the dismissals were fair under section 98A(2) of the Employment Rights Act … Continue reading Software 2000 Ltd v Andrews etc: EAT 17 Jan 2007
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
The court considered the dismissal by an employer of an employee for a disciplinary offence when he would not have been dismissed but for an earlier warning which had expired. Held: The company’s appeal succeded. The court summarised the balance as follows: ‘On the one hand, if the employer has chosen to impose a time-limited … Continue reading Airbus UK Ltd v MG Webb: CA 7 Feb 2008
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
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 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
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
The claimant had been chief executive and a director of the respondent for many years, but was dismissed upon it being taken over. His contract of employment as chief executive provided that it was to be coterminous with his appointment as director. Held: The tribunal were not wrong in law in identifying the reason and … Continue reading Kenneth Cobley v Forward Technology Industries Plc: CA 14 May 2003
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
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
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
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
EAT Reason for dismissal including substantial other reasonable adjustmentsReasonableness of dismissalClaimant dismissed because major customer of Respondent stated that claimant was banned from its premises. Employment Tribunal held dismissal justified because of ‘some other substantial reason’. Respondent appealed.Held: case had to be remitted to Employment Tribunal as in the original decision there was no consideration … Continue reading Greenwood v Whiteghyll Plastics Ltd: EAT 6 Aug 2007
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Wrongful dismissalEmployment Tribunal found Claimant guilty of serious misconduct for which dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses; but that it did not amount to gross misconduct therefore the dismissal was unfair. Applying s98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996, finding of unfair dismissal was … Continue reading Weston Recovery Services v Fisher: EAT 7 Oct 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
Reason for dismissal must be assessed in context of the date notice given. Citations: Times 09-Jan-1997 Statutes: Employment Rights Act 1996 98 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: See Also – Parkinson v March Consulting Ltd EAT 3-Oct-1994 . . Appeal from – Parkinson v March Consulting Ltd EAT 24-Jul-1995 . . Lists of cited by … Continue reading Parkinson v March Consulting Ltd: CA 9 Jan 1997
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSALS.98A(2) ERAPolkey deductionContributory faultThe Employment Tribunal erred when if found procedural defects in the investigation by the Respondent of the allegations of the Claimant’s misconduct. In any event it ought to have allowed evidence and considered Employment Rights Act 1996 s 98A(2).It wrongly awarded compensation beyond the 6 weeks it found it would … Continue reading Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust v Roldan: EAT 2 Sep 2009
EAT Circumstances in which Tribunal erred in finding that employers had failed to comply with the statutory grievance procedure. Conflation of matters relevant to an assessment of fairness of procedure under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 with the narrow and more limited requirements of the SGP. Citations: [2009] UKEAT 0021 – 09 … Continue reading Bells Food Group Ltd v Latimer: EAT 28 Jul 2009
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS: 2002 Act and pre-action requirementsA teacher was given notice to terminate her limited-term contract of employment before a meeting to discuss it. The Employment Tribunal correctly found this was a breach of the 2002 Act regime and automatically unfair contrary to Employment Rights Act 1996 s98A. The correct sequence is this: the … Continue reading Birdwell Primary School v Fitzgerald: EAT 28 May 2009
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL: Constructive dismissalWhether fundamental breach of implied term of trust and confidence cured, so that the Claimant’s resignation did not amount to constructive dismissal.Whether the range of reasonable responses test has any place in the question as to whether an employee has been constructively dismissed. Fairbrother and Claridge considered and not followed.General observations … Continue reading Bournemouth University Higher Education Corp v Buckland: EAT 8 May 2009
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL: Reasonableness of dismissal An Employment Tribunal erred as it focussed upon a decision made by the employer to negotiate a settlement under a procedure leading to a lesser penalty than dismissal. The procedure broke down and at a fair and reasonable hearing the disciplinary panel decided to dismiss the Claimant. The Employment … Continue reading West London Mental Health NHS Trust v Sarkar: EAT 27 Mar 2009
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL Procedural fairness/automatically unfair dismissalS.98A(2) ERA Polkey deduction The employee was told at a meeting that he or his post would be made redundant at a meeting; but he was not then made redundant; further meetings followed before he was given notice of dismissal. The Employment Tribunal found (1) that the dismissal was … Continue reading Smith Knight Fay Ltd v McCoy: EAT 5 Mar 2009
EAT The employee was the practice manager at a general medical practice. She was dismissed for dishonesty, taking unauthorised pay for overtime hours. She alleged that she had been told by the former practice manager that she should do so, but the Tribunal found that she did not raise this with any of the doctors.The … Continue reading Kelly-Madden v Manor Surgery: EAT 19 Oct 2006
EAT The Claimant, a director of the Respondent, was dismissed for gross misconduct. There were grounds upon which the Respondent could reasonably have treated his conduct as justifying immediate dismissal for a fair reason within the meaning of section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. However the ET found that the true reason for … Continue reading East Lancashire Coachbuilders v Hilton: EAT 24 Aug 2006
EAT The claimant appealed against a finding that she had not been unfairly dismissed after she had refused what the employer said was an appropriate alternative position. Judges: Lindsay J P Citations: [2001] UKEAT 1508 – 00 – 1505 Links: Bailii Statutes: Employment Rights Act 1996 98 Jurisdiction: Scotland Employment Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: … Continue reading Marenghi v The Western Baths Club: EAT 15 May 2001
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
EAT Whether an Employment Tribunal took a permissible approach to determining that a dismissal was unfair, in circumstances in which it did not clearly set out the terms of section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Whether on the facts it substituted its own view of the occurrence and quality of misconduct for that … Continue reading Mars UK Ltd T/A Masterfoods v K Parker: EAT 24 Oct 2005
The employees appealed the loss of their case for unfair dismissal. They asserted that the investigation made before the decision to dismiss was made, was inadequate. The EAT was concerned at the apparent weakness of the employer’s investigation, but the real problem was that the tribunal had failed properly to address in its decision the … Continue reading Donnelly, McHarg, Murray v Charnos Plc: EAT 27 Sep 2001
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Compensation Judges: Rimer J Citations: UKEAT/0422/04, [2004] UKEAT 0422 – 04 – 1711 Links: Bailii Statutes: Employment Rights Act 1996 98 Employment Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228663
Dismissal for ‘some other substantial reason’ – employees refusal to sign new contracts. Judges: The Honourable Mr Justice Rimer Citations: UKEAT/0677/04, [2004] UKEAT 0677 – 04 – 1312, [2006] ICR 70 Links: Bailii, EAT Statutes: Employment Rights Act 1996 98(1)(b) Cited by: Cited – Willow Oak Developments Ltd. (T/A Windsor Recruitment) v Silverwood and others … Continue reading Forshaw v Archcraft Ltd: EAT 13 Dec 2004
EAT Race Discrimination – Victimisation. Appeal in respect of victimisation based on incorrect application of Barton; and of unfair dismissal under both Section 99 and Section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 – we found Employment Tribunal had applied itself correctly on all matters and appeal dismissed. EAT Race Discrimination – Victimisation. Judges: His … Continue reading Uzowuru v London Borough of Tower Hamlets: EAT 2 Mar 2005
The defendant appealed against the strike out of parts of its defence. The claimant was employed as the mosque director and imam. He had brought an action in the Industrial Tribunal alleging wrongful dismissal, but notifying the defendants that any excess above what the tribunal could order would be sought in the current action. That … Continue reading Sajid v Sussex Muslim Society: CA 2 Oct 2001
EAT Unfair Dismissal – OtherThe employer appealed a finding of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. She suffered an apparently minor injury, but which led to long standing disability with varying diagnoses. The company doctor came to consider it would be a long time before she could return. She was dismissed for capability. Held: There was … Continue reading Gate Gourmet v J B Jangra: EAT 12 Dec 2000
The employer appealed against a finding of unfair dismissal. Held: In deciding whether the applicant had been unfairly dismissed for misconduct, the tribunal was free to consider whether the procedure adopted by the employer was reasonable, even where the applicant had admitted the misconduct. The band of reasonable responses test should be applied equally to … Continue reading Whitbread Plc (Trading As Whitbread Medway Inns) v Hall: CA 27 Feb 2001
The reasons available to an employer under section 98(1)(b) are not limited to reasons of the same kind as those spelt out in section 98(2), nor do they require consideration of the fairness of the dismissal, which falls to be considered under section 98(4) rather than at the prior stage of identifying the reason for … Continue reading Priddle v Dibble: EAT 1978
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSALReasonableness of dismissalProcedural fairness/automatically unfair dismissalThe Employment Tribunal failed to consider the effect of S98A(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Had it done so it would have been bound to find that had the Respondent followed a fair dismissal procedure the Claimant would have been dismissed in any event. Judges: Serota QC … Continue reading Punch Pub Company Ltd v O’Neill: EAT 23 Jul 2010
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