The employees claimed enhanced redundancy payments. The employers said no contractual obligation existed to make any such payments. The employees said that all previous redundancies had been under such terms, and that it had become a term of their contract. The employers appealed a finding against them, saying the term could not be implied through any requirement of business efficiency, and that there was no finding that the term should apply to future redundancies.
Held: The right to enhanced redundancy payments had become a term of the contract and was to be paid.
EAT Contract of Employment – Breach of Contract
Judges:
Her Honour Judge A Wakefield
Citations:
EAT/415/00, [2001] UKEAT 415 – 00 – 1210
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Duke v GEC Reliance Systems Limited HL 2-Jan-1988
The court was asked about the differential in retirement ages between men and women in private sector employment, and whether it constituted sex discrimination.
Held: Section 2(4) of the 1972 Act did not allow a British Court to distort the . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Albion Automotive Ltd v Walker and Others CA 21-Jun-2002
The parties disputed whether there had arisen an implied term in the company’s employment contracts that enhanced redundancy would be paid.
Held: Peter Gibson LJ adopted a multi-factorial approach as to the relevant factors to be taken into . .
Cited – Garratt v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd CA 13-Apr-2011
The claimant had been employed by the defendant. They made him redundant. He claimed and enhanced payment saying that his emloyment was covered by a collective agreement, but when he refused to sign a compromise agreement, the company paid him only . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.168347