British Broadcasting Corporation v Farnworth: EAT 13 Jul 1998

The claimant employee said that the non-renewal of her fixed term contract was not a redundancy as alleged.
Held: It could still be a redundancy situation when an employee is dismissed because the organisation requires an employee with more experience. The non renewal of a fixed term contract for a producer became a redundancy when she was needed to be replaced by someone with more experience.


Levy QC J


Times 07-Oct-1998, Gazette 28-Oct-1998, [1998] UKEAT 1000 – 97 – 1307




CitedSafeway Stores Plc v Burrell EAT 24-Jan-1997
The tribunal set out the test for whether a dismissal was for redundancy: ‘Free of authority, we understand the statutory framework . . involve a three-stage process: (1) was the employee dismissed: If so, (2) had the requirements of the employer’s . .
CitedVaux and Associated Breweries Ltd v Ward 1968
Definition of the phrase ‘work of a particular kind’. . .
CitedKleboe v Ayr County Council 1971
Meaning of ‘work of a particular kind’ in the context of redundancy. . .
CitedMurphy v Epsom College CA 1984
The College replaced a plumber who could do the work of a heating engineer with a heating engineer who could do plumbing work. The number of employees and the work remained the same.
Held: The dismissal was by reason of redundancy because the . .
CitedPillinger v Manchester Area Health Authority 1979
The claimanat said his dismissal had not been a redundancy, since the person who replaced him did the same work.
Held: The dismissal must have been for some other reason. It was not a redundancy. The court discussed the meaning of the phrase . .
CitedLoudon v Crimpy Crisps Ltd 1966
In order to test whether there has been a redundancy the statute asks as to the requirements of the business for employees to do work of a particular kind. The personal attributes of the employee are not relevant except in so far as they reflect . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78608