ECJ References for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Directive 98/59/EC – Collective redundancies – Immediate termination of employment contracts following a judicial decision ordering the dissolution and winding up of a legal person – No consultation of employees’ representatives – Equivalence of employer and liquidator
C-237/10, [2011] EUECJ C-237/10
European
Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430332
ECJ References for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Directive 98/59/EC – Collective redundancies – Immediate termination of employment contracts following a judicial decision ordering the dissolution and winding up of a legal person – No consultation of employees’ representatives – Equivalence of employer and liquidator
[2011] EUECJ C-236/10
European
Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430331
Appeal against order restraining defendant trades unions from pursuing industrial action.
Mummery, Etherton, Elias LJJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 226
England and Wales
Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430316
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke
An Employment Tribunal decision must comply in both form and substance with 30(6) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 SI No. 1861 and failure to do so will amount to an error of law; Balfour Beatty Power Networks Ltd v Wilcox [2006] EWCA Civ 1240; [2007] IRLR 63 applied. Where issues arise as to whether there has been substantial compliance the approach in Meek v City of Birmingham District Council [1987] IRLR 250 will need to be kept in mind. In so far as Short v Hayman UKEAT/0379/08/CEA can be read as suggesting that a decision may not be erroneous despite non-compliance with the Rule, it would not be followed. Here the judgment did not comply and the case was remitted for a rehearing.
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Compensation/ Section 98A(2)
Section 98A(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 has no application when there has been a breach of ‘Statutory Procedures’. Appeal allowed and the case remitted for a rehearing.
[2011] UKEAT 0409 – 09 – 0218
Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 30(6)
Cited – Balfour Beatty Power Networks Ltd Interserve Industrial Services Ltd v C Wilcox and 6 others A Seymour and 18 others I M Realisation Ltd (In Administration) EAT 2-Nov-2005
EAT Transfer of Undertakings: Consultation and Other Information; Transfer
Practice and Procedure: Appellate Jurisdiction
Nature of ‘undertaking’ for the purposes of TUPE: could there be a stable . .
Cited – Sivagnansundarum v Whipps Cross University Hospital NHS Trust EAT 28-Jun-2011
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke
Although this was a ‘narrative’ judgment sufficient substance could be extracted from the decision to demonstrate compliance with rule . .
Cited – Joes v The City and County of Swansea EAT 5-May-2011
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Compensation
The decisions to apportion compensation, not to award any future loss after April 2008 and to apply an ‘uplift’ of 25% in respect of breach of statutory procedures were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430302
EAT REDUNDANCY
Collective consultation and information
Protective award
Section 188(1) TULRA – the Respondent accepted that it proposed to dismiss as redundant 19 employees, but said that a 20th employee’s employment was consensually terminated for early retirement. Tribunal found otherwise – reasoning insufficient on this point.
Section 189 TULRA – approach to protective award. Tribunal wrongly linked protective award to consultation period and failed to apply approach in Susie Radin Ltd v GMB [2004] ICR 893, especially at paragraph 45 and Hutchins v Permacell Finesse Ltd (2007) UKEAT/0350/07, especially at paragraphs 20-21.
[2011] UKEAT 0148 – 10 – 0402
Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430301
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal
The Claimants were dismissed for gross misconduct in restraining an elderly dementia patient. The Employment Tribunal found that the employer had insufficient evidence based on an inadequate investigation to ground its belief that the patient was tied to a chair and no effort was made to release him. The EAT allowed an appeal based on a substitution mindset by the ET. London Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Small [2009] IRLR 563 applied. Case remitted to a fresh ET for a re-hearing because of insufficient clarity as to what the outcome would be.
[2011] UKEAT 0338 – 10 – 0303
England and Wales
Appeal from – Crawford and Another v Suffolk Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust CA 17-Feb-2012
The claimant nurses appealed against the reversal of the finding that they had been unfairly dismissed. They had been accused of manhandling an aggressive dementia patient. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430309
EAT CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Implied term/variation/construction of term
Whether variation of contractual terms to permit lay-off without pay other than statutory guaranteed pay. Consideration of EAT decisions in Jones [1981] IRLR 477 and Solectron [2004] IRLR 4.
Held: No agreed variation. Appeal by Claimant allowed. Declaration made as to unauthorised deductions from wages.
[2011] UKEAT 0159 – 10 – 1401
Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430298
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Time for appealing
The Appellant was one and 16 days late in lodging a Notice of Appeal against two interim case management orders. He was articulate and assiduous in legal research on tribunal procedure. No exceptional reason was found to extend time. Harper v Hopkins applied.
[2010] UKEAT 0364 – 10 – 1811
Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430293
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal
Unfair dismissal. Misconduct. Employee who drank an alcoholic drink outwith workplace but during working hours dismissed for misconduct. Employer had a Disciplinary Policy which provided that being under the influence of alcohol during working hours was gross misconduct which could lead to summary dismissal and a Drugs/Alcohol policy which provided that consumption of alcohol or being under the influence of alcohol while performing company business or in the workplace was prohibited and could lead to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal including for a first offence. Employee unaware of Drugs/Alcohol policy. Majority decision of Employment Tribunal that dismissal unfair because dismissal based on a policy of which he was unaware and which was also confusing. Appeal based on the reasoning of the minority that it was reasonable for the employer to conclude the employee was aware of the policy refused and finding of unfair dismissal upheld.
[2011] UKEAT 0039 – 10 – 0202
Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430303
The claimants appealed against the strike out of their claims for damages for breach of contract on imposing changes in employment contract and conditions. The County Court had accepted the Council’s arguments on the construction and application of s.2(3) and struck out the equal pay claims saying that the expiry of time for presenting the claims to the ET was an irrelevant factor.
Held: The court rejected the proposition that equal pay claims cannot be more conveniently disposed of in the ET because, due to the expiry of the limitation period, they could only be struck out in that forum.
Slade DBE J said: ‘In my judgment the inability of the appellants to commence proceedings before an employment tribunal could be a factor affecting the convenience of the tribunal as a forum for equal pay claims or one affecting the judge’s discretionary decision to strike out such claims in the county court. Whether that factor is taken into account in determining whether the equal pay claims can be more conveniently disposed of in the employment tribunal or if such a conclusion is reached on other grounds, in deciding whether to strike out the claims, in my judgment the reasons why the proceedings had not been issued in the employment tribunal in time would be relevant to the decision under . . s.2(3) . . Claimants cannot rely on letting the limitation period for claims to an employment tribunal go by in order to ensure that their equal pay claims are heard in the courts. It cannot be said that because such claims to an employment tribunal would be out of time a judge could not decide that it would be more convenient for them to be disposed of in the employment tribunal and to strike out the claims in the county court or High Court. In my judgment applying the approach of Lord Goff in Spiliada practical justice would require the reason for not commencing employment tribunal proceedings to be taken into account. If not presenting such proceedings was reasonable, the interests of justice are likely to be served by enabling claimants to continue litigating in a forum which has jurisdiction to hear their claims. Such considerations could affect the decision as to whether the claims could be more conveniently disposed of in the employment tribunal, or, if a judge so concluded, whether discretion should be exercised to strike out the claims in the county court.’
Slade DBE J
[2011] EWHC 424 (QB), [2011] IRLR 473, [2011] 4 All ER 182, [2011] Eq LR 339, [2012] ICR 1
Cited – Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd, The Spiliada HL 1986
Forum Non Conveniens Restated
The House reviewed the authorities on the principle of forum non conveniens and restated how to apply the principle where the defendant seeks a stay of proceedings on the ground that there is another more appropriate forum.
Held: ‘In the . .
Cited – Birmingham City Council v Abdulla and Others SC 24-Oct-2012
Former employees wished to argue that they had been discriminated against whilst employed by the Council. Being out of time for Employment Tribunal Proceedings, they sought to bring their cases in the ordinary courts. The Council now appealed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430292
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL
Constructive dismissal
The Employment Tribunal erred in finding that there was a constructive dismissal on the wrong basis.
Compensation
The Employment Tribunal’s reasons failed to explain whether or not the constructive dismissal was fair or unfair, and why the Employment Tribunal was entitled to limit compensation to the contractual period. The issue of remedy and constructive unfair dismissal to be remitted to the Employment Tribunal for further consideration all possible outcomes to be considered.
Wilkie J
[2011] UKEAT 0341 – 10 – 2001
Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430295
EAT TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKING – Insolvency
Administration proceedings pursuant to Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986 are not capable of constituting ‘bankruptcy . . or . . analogous insolvency proceedings which have been instituted with a view to the liquidation of the assets of the transferor’ within the meaning of reg. 8 (7) of TUPE and art. 5.2 of the consolidated Acquired Rights Directive, with the consequence that on a sale by an administrator regs. 4 and 7 of TUPE will apply – Oakland v Wellwood (Yorkshire) Ltd. [2009] IRLR 250 not followed.
Observations on application of reg. 8 (1)-(6) of TUPE.
Underhill J P
[2011] UKEAT 0320 – 09 – 1602
Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430305
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke
An Employment Tribunal decision must comply in both form and substance with 30(6) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 SI No. 1861 and failure to do so will amount to an error of law; Balfour Beatty Power Networks Ltd v Wilcox [2006] EWCA Civ 1240; [2007] IRLR 63 applied. Where issues arise as to whether there has been substantial compliance the approach in Meek v City of Birmingham District Council [1987] IRLR 250 will need to be kept in mind. In so far as Short v Hayman UKEAT/0379/08/CEA can be read as suggesting that a decision may not be erroneous despite non-compliance with the Rule, it would not be followed. Here the judgment did not comply and the case was remitted for a rehearing.
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Compensation/ Section 98A(2)
Section 98A(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 has no application when there has been a breach of ‘Statutory Procedures’. Appeal allowed and the case remitted for a rehearing.
Richard Hand QC J
[2011] UKEAT 0409 – 09 – 1802
Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430304
EAT EQUAL PAY ACT
SEX DISCRIMINATION – Jurisdiction
Whether allocation of share options, which differed between Claimant and her male comparator, gave rise to a claim under the Equal Pay Act 1970 or Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (see SDA s6(6)). On the facts found, the scheme being truly discretionary, the claim fell under the SDA. Since that claim was time-barred the employer’s appeal against the Employment Tribunal award under the Equal Pay Act succeeded.
Peter Clarke QC J
[2011] UKEAT 0475 – 09 – 0701
Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430297
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Extension of time: reasonably practicable
The Claimant presented his unfair dismissal claim online just within the time limit – but to the wrong Tribunal (the Northern Ireland Tribunal). After several weeks delay the Northern Ireland Tribunal rejected his claim and he then applied promptly to the Tribunal in England and Wales. The Employment Tribunal erred in law in taking into account the Northern Ireland Tribunal’s delay outside the time limit in deciding whether it was reasonably practicable to bring the claim within the time limit; and did not make any sufficient findings on the real issue – viz why the Claimant made this mistake and whether it was reasonable.
Richardson J
[2011] UKEAT 0395 – 10 – 2001
Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430299
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Constructive dismissal
Constructive and unfair dismissal.
The Tribunal reached an insupportable finding of fact on the question whether the Respondent had taken prompt action to remove an employee who had threatened the Claimant.
The Tribunal erred in law in holding that the Claimant did not resign in response to the Respondent’s breach of contract by concentrating on what it described as the ‘immediate cause’: Jones v Sirl and Son (Furnishers) Ltd [1997] IRLR 493 and Nottinghamshire County Council v Meikle [2004] IRLR 703 applied.
Appeal allowed. Finding of constructive and unfair dismissal substituted.
Richardson J
[2011] UKEAT 0181 – 10 – 1602
Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430300
(Barbuda) Where the amount of a pension was to be calculated by reference to the length of service and the greater of the pay at the time of retirement, or the average over the last three years, that pay was calculated as the total amount of pay or earnings of all kinds relating to the pensionable employment.
Ind Summary 22-Mar-1993, [1993] UKPC 6
Commonwealth
Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.429751
Maurice Kay VP, Hooper, Tomlinson LJJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 131, [2010] IRLR 648
England and Wales
Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.429664
EAT RELIGION OR BELIEF DISCRIMINATION
Whether Claimant dismissed on grounds of his beliefs. Answer, by Employment Tribunal; No – it was the expression of those beliefs which was in part the cause of his dismissal. No basis in law for interfering with that finding.
[2010] UKEAT 0087 – 10 – 0810
England and Wales
Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.427301
The claimants, employed by the defendants as cabin crew, sought a declaration as to their respective contractual terms; an injunction to restrain the now continuing breach of contract; damages; and costs. BA denied any breach of contract; BA further denied entitlement to the relief sought.
Sir Christopher Holland
[2010] EWHC 302 (QB), [2011] ICR 351, [2010] IRLR 431
England and Wales
Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.401921
The Law Society said that the 2007 Act would involve the transfer of it employees working within the Legal Complaints Service to the new office for Legal Complaints and that the TUPE regulations would apply.
Akenhead J
[2010] EWHC 352 (QB), [2010] IRLR 407
Legal Services Act 2007, Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006
England and Wales
Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.401920
EAT Maternity Rights and Parental Leave
His Honour Judge J R Reid QC
EAT/40/01, EAT/941/00, [2001] UKEAT 941 – 00 – 0511
England and Wales
See Also – Simpson v Kensington Housing Trust EAT 8-Dec-2000
. .
See Also – Simpson v Kensington Housing Trust CA 30-Jan-2002
. .
See Also – Simpson v Kensington Housing Trust CA 12-Mar-2002
Application for leave to appeal. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.255438
Appeal from rejection of claim of unfair dismissal.
[2000] EAT 460 – 99 – 2902
England and Wales
Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.264775
[2000] EAT 1010 – 99 – 1812
England and Wales
Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.265908
[2000] UKEAT 1408 – 99 – 1603
England and Wales
Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.264972
ECJ Grand Chamber – Fixed-term employment – Directive 1999/70/EC – Framework agreement on fixed-term work – Abuse through use of successive fixed – term employment contracts – Civil and public servants – Employment conditions – Pay and pension entitlements – Direct effect of directives – Interpretation in conformity with a directive – Procedural autonomy – Referring court’s doubts as to its jurisdiction in respect of claims based directly on Community law.
V Skouris, P
C-268/06, [2008] EUECJ C-268/06, [2008] IRLR 552, ECLI:EU:C:2008:223, [2009] All ER (EC) 306, [2008] 2 CMLR 47, [2008] ECR I-2483, [2008] Pens LR 323
European
Cited – T-Mobile (Uk) Ltd. and Another v Office of Communications CA 12-Dec-2008
The claimant telecoms companies objected to a proposed scheme for future licensing of available spectrum. The scheme anticipated a bias in favour of auctioniung such content. It was not agreed whether any challenge to the decision should be by way . .
Cited – Unison, Regina (on The Application of) v Lord Chancellor SC 26-Jul-2017
The union appellant challenged the validity of the imposition of fees on those seeking to lay complaints in the Employment Tribunal system.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The fees were discriminatory and restricted access to justice.
The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.263464
EAT Reason for dismissal including substantial other reasonable adjustments
Reasonableness of dismissal
Claimant 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 of what was described in Dobie v Burns [1984] ICR 812,817 as the ‘very important factor of . . whether there will be injustice to the employee and the extent of the injustice’
Silber J
[2007] UKEAT 0219 – 07 – 0608
Employment Rights Act 1996 98(4)
England and Wales
Cited – Dobie v Burns International Security Services (UK) Ltd CA 14-May-1984
The employee worked as a security officer for the appellant, which was in turn employed by the respondent to provide security for an airport controlled by the Merseyside City Council. The Council had the right of approval of any employee of the . .
Cited – Retarded Childrens Aid Society v Day CA 1978
Lord Russell of Killowen said: ‘The function of the Employment Appeal Tribunal is to correct errors of law where one is established and identified. I think care must be taken to avoid concluding that an experienced industrial tribunal by not . .
Cited – Thomas Martin v J F X-Press Ltd EAT 30-Jul-2004
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL,br />(1) No error on ET’s finding R. acted reasonably in dismissing A. at the instance of its sole client, albeit R. acknowledged an injustice to A.
PRACTICE and PROCEDURE
(2) . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.258610
EAT Practice and Procedure: Case Management; Unfair Dismissal: Reason For Dismissal Including Substantial Other Reason
In deciding that the employee’s dismissal was for redundancy, the ET rejected his case that redundancy was a sham. Evidence as to what passed between the parties between the date of notification of redundancy and the termination at the end of the notice period of the contract of employment, was excluded, as was other evidence. The appeal, largely based on an attack on these exclusions, was dismissed. Although evidence of events after the employee has been told that he is dismissed on notice may be relevant to the reason for the dismissal, on analysis of the evidence which the employee wished to call but was not permitted to call, it was irrelevant or could not have made any difference to the ET’s conclusions.
His Honour Judge Burke Qc
[2006] UKEAT 0673 – 05 – 2102, UKEAT/0673/05
England and Wales
See Also – Symphony Group Plc v Hussey EAT 15-Oct-1992
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.240236
[2002] EWCA Civ 1391
England and Wales
Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.217577
[1993] UKEAT 88 – 92 – 1301
England and Wales
Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.210397
[1997] UKEAT 860 – 97 – 0812
England and Wales
Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.208041
[1993] UKEAT 183 – 91 – 1301
England and Wales
Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.210393
[1995] UKEAT 776 – 94 – 2407
England and Wales
See Also – Parkinson v March Consulting Ltd EAT 3-Oct-1994
. .
Appeal from – Parkinson v March Consulting Ltd CA 9-Jan-1997
Reason for dismissal must be assessed in context of the date notice given. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.209018
[1998] UKEAT 1335 – 97 – 2711
England and Wales
Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.206888
[1998] UKEAT 1104 – 98 – 2711
England and Wales
Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.206875
[2001] UKEAT 792 – 99 – 0102
England and Wales
Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.203493
[1995] UKEAT 842 – 95 – 2911
England and Wales
Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.209494
[1998] UKEAT 888 – 98 – 0111
England and Wales
Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.206861
[2002] EWCA Civ 627
Disability Discrimination Act 1995
England and Wales
Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.217056
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers MR
[2004] EWCA Civ 262
England and Wales
Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.194420
The claimant was employed by the Army. He claimed that he was racially discriminated against because the army refused to provide him with Halal meat.
Held: The 1976 Act first required the applicant to have exhausted the Army’s own internal grievance procedures. He had not done so. The employment tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint. Article 6 could not be prayed in aid to give the tribunal jurisdiction.
Peter Gibson, Tuckey, Buxton LJJ
Times 12-Jul-2003, Gazette 28-Aug-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 801
European Convention on Human Rights 6, Race Relations Act 1976 4(2) 75(8) 75(9), Race Relations (Complaints to Employment Tribunals) (Armed Forces) Regulations 1997 (1997 No 2161) 2, Race Relations Act 1976
England and Wales
Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.184445
Regulation 4 of the Requirements for Teachers (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (‘the 2005 Regulations’), provides that a local education authority can employ only registered teachers. The issue in this appeal (brought by the local education authority) is whether the term ‘registered teacher’ in that provision simply means a teacher whose details have been entered on to the register (‘the Register’) maintained by the General Teaching Council of Scotland (‘GTCS’) (intervening), or whether it requires that the teacher is registered in that part of the Register that is relevant to the type of teaching work undertaken, i.e. whether registration is in the part of the Register dealing with primary schools, secondary schools or further education institutions or which deals with a particular subject matter which the teacher is engaged to teach. The Claimant in this matter was dismissed by the Respondent from his role as a secondary school teacher once it emerged that he was only registered as a Further Education teacher. In a claim of unfair dismissal brought by the Claimant, the Respondent asserted that the dismissal was by reason of there being a statutory bar on continued employment within the meaning of s.98(2)(d) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Employment Tribunal rejected the Respondent’s reason for dismissal on the basis that there was no statutory bar to continued employment
Held: Dismissing the appeal, that on a proper interpretation of the 2005 Regulations, the only restriction on a local education authority was against employing an unregistered teacher. Thus, there was no statutory restriction on continuing to employ the Claimant and the Tribunal was correct to so conclude. Appeals against the Tribunal’s findings on the levels of compensation and pension loss were also dismissed.
[2019] UKEAT 19 – 0001 – 0708
Scotland
Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.643079
Following her resignation, the Claimant presented a claim form. The Respondent had written her a letter in August 2016 proposing that her employment be terminated on the basis of a settlement agreement. Her case was that this was a reaction to the news that she was pregnant, that there had been a history of various detrimental treatment for pregnancy or maternity-related reasons, and that the writing of that letter to her had led, in due course, to her decision to resign. It was her case, at least, that she had been constructively dismissed, and that she had been both unfairly dismissed and discriminated against contrary to sections 18 and 39 Equality Act 2010.
The Respondent defended the claims on their merits. It also asserted that section 111A Employment Rights Act 1996 meant that the Claimant could not rely on the August 2016 letter in relation to any of her claims. It also asserted that she had in any event waived her right to rely on that letter as having caused her to resign, and it raised time points in relation to her discrimination claims.
At a case management Preliminary Hearing (PH) a Judge directed a further PH to consider the Respondent’s application for strike -out /deposit orders, the ‘applicability’ of section 111A and time points. The Claimant then tabled amended particulars of claim, which included her case in response to the Respondent’s reliance on section 111A. This included that the August 2016 letter was not a genuine attempt to negotiate, so (it was argued) the section was not engaged at all, that section 111A(3) applied, and that the writing of the letter was ‘improper behaviour.’
The Judge who heard the further PH stated in his decision that it was agreed that section 111A was ‘applicable’, and held that it precluded reliance on the August 2016 letter in respect of the unfair dismissal claim, but not the discrimination claims. The Claimant appealed the decision in relation to section 111A on the basis that the Judge had failed to engage with the issues in relation to section 111A(3) and (4), or, if he had, to explain his reasons in relation to them.
The appeal was allowed. In this particular case the amended particulars set out the factual basis for a claim of constructive automatically unfair dismissal, including the express assertion that the tabling of the August 2016 letter was an act of pregnancy or maternity discrimination, the assertion that section111A(3) applied, and the assertion that the writing of the letter amounted also to ‘improper behaviour’. That provided the basis for assertions that both sections 111A(3) and (4) applied. The former assertion was also made in counsel’s written skeleton argument for the second PH. While neither the pleadings nor that skeleton expressly referred to section 99 ERA 1996 or regulation 20 MAPLE Regulations 1999, that was a pure labelling exercise.
It appeared that the Claimant’s counsel at the second PH has also not raised in oral argument that there were issues under either sub-section (3) or (4) of section 111A. In those circumstances it appears that the Judge understood that what he was told was agreed in respect of section 111A had disposed of the section 111A aspect entirely; and he did not give any consideration to how matters stood in relation to sub-sections (3) or (4).
However, in circumstances where there had been a reactive amendment to the particulars of claim, in response to the Respondent’s assertion that section 111A applied, which expressly raised section 111A(3) and implicitly section 111A(4), in which no further case management prior to that PH had occurred, and no draft or agreed list of issues had subsequently been drawn up or tabled, and in which the Claimant’s reliance on these provisions was not expressly abandoned, it was incumbent on the Judge at the second PH to seek to clarify with the representatives the issues arising under section 111A(3) and(4) and then to address them.
[2019] UKEAT 0085 – 19 – 2708
England and Wales
Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.642759
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Disclosure
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Admissibility of evidence
The Respondent before the Tribunal had disclosed a draft dismissal letter prepared by its solicitors from which it had redacted the solicitor’s comments and notes. It was common ground that the draft letter was not legally privileged, but that the redacted parts were protected by legal advice privilege within the umbrella definition of legal professional privilege. The issue was whether the Respondent had waived privilege in the redacted parts of that letter by having disclosed two earlier documents. The issue was whether the Tribunal had wrongly found that one of the earlier documents was not protected by legal advice privilege and if it had erred in not dealing with the other document.
Held: The Tribunal had erred in failing to address or rule on the document it had not mentioned, and it was perverse to find the other document was not legally privileged when it was made for the purpose of obtaining or giving legal advice. The parties agreed that it was for this Tribunal to decide whether the Respondent was permitted to cherry pick and if it could maintain, or had waived, privilege in relation to the redacted parts of the draft dismissal letter by choosing to disclose other material that they were entitled to withhold as confidential.
It was further held that all three documents were part of the same transaction of providing legal advice about the dismissal of the Claimant. Given the nature and purpose of the disclosure, fairness required that the redacted part of the letter concerning the reason for the Claimant’s dismissal also be disclosed, since it would be unfair to allow the Respondent who had waived privilege in relation to the other two documents not to reveal those redacted parts of the dismissal letter which related to the reason for dismissal. It would be impermissible cherry picking as the cliche goes. The redactions that did not concern the reason for dismissal, such as references to holiday pay entitlement and post-employment restrictive covenants could remain redacted, if the Respondent so desired. But the Respondent consented to removing those redactions for consistency and transparency and would excise the redactions for the trial bundle.
Stacey HHJ
[2019] UKEAT 0129 – 19 – 0909
England and Wales
Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.642765
Underhill VP CA, Lindblom, Irwin LJJ
[2019] EWCA Civ 1649, [2019] WLR(D) 550
England and Wales
Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.642670
RACE DISCRIMINATION – Harassment, Third-Party Harassment
The issue in this appeal is whether s . 26 (1) of the Equality Act 2010 (‘the 2010 Act’) should be interpreted so as to impose liability on an employer for third-party harassment against employees. The Claimant worked as a mental health nurse and was assaulted by a patient on racial grounds. Whilst the Tribunal found that as a result of various failures on the part of the employer, including a failure to ensure that all incidents of racial abuse were reported, the Claimant had been indirectly discriminated against, it rejected the Claimant’s claim of harassment because the employer’s failings were not themselves related to race. On appeal, the Claimant argued that s.26(1) of the 2010 Act should be construed in accordance with Directive 2000/43/EC (‘the Race Directive’) under which it is sufficient for liability to arise where the act of harassment ‘takes place’ without any requirement that the employer’s failings themselves had to be related to race.
Held : Dismissing the appeal, that on a proper construction of the Race Directive there is a requirement for the unwanted act (in this case, the employer’s failings) to be related to race and the words ‘takes place’ in Article 2(3) of the Race Directive do not give rise to the interpretation for which the Claimant contends. The EAT is in any event bound by the decision of the Court of Appeal in Unite the Union v Nailard [2019] ICR 28, which confirms that there is currently no explicit liability under the 2010 Act on an employer for failing to prevent third-party harassment.
[2019] UKEAT 0247 – 18 – 1810
England and Wales
Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.642766
The employee appealed rejection of his claim that the requirement to sign over to his employers the copyright in his works was a discrimination against his sincere belief as to ownership of copyrights.
Held: The appeal failed.
Bean, Simler , Arnold LJJ
[2019] EWCA Civ 1720, [2019] WLR(D) 569
England and Wales
Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.642667
EAT REDUNDANCY
There was no error in the application of s221 and Gilbert to the calculation of the Claimant’s redundancy payment.
McMullen QC J
[2010] UKEAT 0767 – 10 – 1412
Employment Rights Act 1996 221
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428719
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Case management
Postponement or stay
The Employment Judge erred in deciding not to stay Employment Tribunal proceedings, and to allow them to run concurrently over similar territory with High Court proceedings. By consent, the decision would be made by the EAT and not remitted.
[2010] UKEAT 0225 – 10 – 0712
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428724
EAT CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Wrongful dismissal
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Constructive dismissal
Argument that employer failed to tell Second Claimant, who together with the First Claimant shared work duties for the Respondent employer by private arrangement between the Claimants, that it was accepting his repudiatory conduct (not turning up for work, ever again, though asked to do so) and has therefore never terminated his contract, and that an unfair dismissal claim first made some 15 months later by him and some 9 months later by her was thus within time, was rejected as wholly without merit. Although the date of termination for the purposes of statutory rights may be different from the contractually determined date of termination of the contract of employment, the passage of time and circumstances were such that the Claimants must have been aware they were no longer employed.
[2010] UKEAT 0263 – 10 – 0212
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428727
EAT RACE DISCRIMINATION – Other losses
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Compensation
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs
Other losses
The Claimant’s appeal against the assessment of future loss rejected.
Compensation
The Employment Tribunal had not explained why it rejected the claim for exemplary damages in a case in which the facts could (possibly) have merited it, and had appeared to think such an award was compensatory rather than punitive.
Costs
An argument that having found the case a suitable one for the award of aggravated damages, a costs order in the Claimant’s favour should follow, was rejected. The ET had a discretion whether to order costs or not and had not misdirected itself.
[2010] UKEAT 0325 – 10 – 1412
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428726
EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
Disability related discrimination
Direct disability discrimination
An Employment Tribunal failed to focus on the wording of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in concluding there had been no reasonable adjustment when the employer failed further to extend the benefits of the sick pay scheme to her, when they were already well beyond that which the evidence showed was given to non-disabled employees when sick. The ET had approached it as if a claim for unfair dismissal, when the employer’s reasons would be relevant, whereas ‘reasonable adjustment’ is to be judged by the result, not the process by which it is reached. Comprehensive errors of approach, law and fact pervaded the ET’s approach.
Langstaff J
[2010] UKEAT 0542 – 09 – 1612, [2011] ICR 632
Disability Discrimination Act 1995
Cited – General Dynamics Information Technology Ltd v Carranza EAT 10-Oct-2014
EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Reasonable adjustments
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal
The Employment Tribunal, by a majority, found that the Respondent was in breach of a duty to make . .
Cited – Firstgroup Plc v Paulley CA 8-Dec-2014
The claimant a wheelchair user had been unable to travel on a bus when a mother had left her sleeping child in a pushchair. The mother said she was unable to fold down the pushchair, and would not move the child. The claimant said that the driver . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428725
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Worker, employee or neither
CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Whether established
On the Respondent not attending the ET, it could not complain that its assertion that the Claimant was not an employee was rejected on evidence by and for the employee. Allegations of fraud and illegality, not made before the day of the appeal, would not be allowed: Ladd v Marshall.
[2010] UKEAT 0648 – 10 – 1511
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428717
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Review
The Appellants were in administration at the time of the hearing. Although we had a skeleton argument from counsel there was no appearance by the Appellants. The Appellants – the employers – failed to enter an appearance. Their attempt to appeal on the basis that they misunderstood correspondence was turned down by HHJ Peter Clark. They did not appeal that. Their application for review was eight weeks after time. Appeal was on the basis the Employment Tribunal Chairman not doing a balancing act and should have exercised discretion to allow the review. The appeal was dismissed.
[2010] UKEAT 0015 – 10 – 2710
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428712
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate jurisdiction
There was no exceptional reason to exercise discretion to allow a late Notice of Appeal. The Claimant had a draft from her solicitor, knew the deadlines and which documents to lodge, and could have done so on the 42nd day. Further, the case had no merit.
[2010] UKEAT 0943 – 10 – 1712
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428723
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Case management
Striking-out/dismissal
1. Employment Judge erred in law in assuming she had jurisdiction in effect to strike out part of the claim, on case management grounds at a case management discussion.
2. The employment Judge erred in law in proceeding to make such an order without first giving the Claimant the opportunity to make representations.
3. In all the circumstances the decision of the Employment Judge was such that no reasonable judge properly directing herself could have reached.
Wilkie J
[2011] UKEAT 0567 – 10 – 1402
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428711
EAT AGE DISCRIMINATION
Age Discrimination. Civil Service Pension Scheme. Claim that lack of actuarial adjustment in respect of retiral after age 60 amounted to age discrimination struck out by the Employment Tribunal as having no reasonable prospects of success. Appeal dismissed.
[2010] UKEAT 0013 – 10 – 0511
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428714
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL
Reasonableness of dismissal
S.98A(2) ERA
Claimant dismissed for gross misconduct. Employment Tribunal found unfair dismissal but (a) placed the burden of proof on the Respondent instead of applying a neutral burden of proof. It also misunderstood s.98A(2) ERA 1996; failed to make a Polkey finding; failed to make a finding on contributory fault; and failed to give any reasons for assessing the period of loss. A cross appeal on s.98A(2) ERA 1996 dismissed. Case remitted for a hearing before a fresh Employment Tribunal.
Birtles J
[2010] UKEAT 0287 – 10 – 2311
Employment Rights Act 1998 98A(2)
England and Wales
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428716
EAT RACE DISCRIMINATION – Other losses
After an oral judgment awarding certain sums and giving the parties the opportunity for calculating others, such as loss of earnings etc, and awarding an uplift of 45%, both counsel met on the following day to agree the figures, and just prior to returning to the Tribunal the Appellant made an express bank transfer of the sum (apart from the uplift) which had thus been agreed, and relied on Arrow v Onley [2009] UKEAT 0527 – 08 – 0406 to seek to avoid the uplift.
Held: (i) the oral judgment was an award (ii) in any event Arrow did not apply to a payment in such circumstances (iii) payment in such circumstances was required to be accepted, not unilaterally made.
[2010] UKEAT 0245 – 10 – 0511
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428718
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Amendment
Amendment of claim form. Wording inserting a new statutory claim of dismissal for a protected disclosure drafted by Employment Tribunal. On appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the Employment Tribunal had erred, pronounced an order revoking the grant of leave to amend and remitted the case to a freshly constituted Tribunal.
Lady Smith
[2010] UKEAT 0023 – 10 – 2611
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428715
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Polkey reduction
AGE DISCRIMINATION
Claimant dismissed for redundancy – Claims of unfair dismissal, and of age discrimination on basis that he was selected because he was oldest candidate in the redundancy pool – Unfair dismissal conceded prior to hearing – Tribunal makes finding that Claimant would probably not have been dismissed if a fair procedure had been followed – Age discrimination claim dismissed.
Held:
(1) Finding as to chance of non-selection flawed and should not bind Tribunal at remedy hearing
(2) No evidence to support a claim of age discrimination and Tribunal right to dismiss it.
[2010] UKEAT 0216 – 10 – 1002
England and Wales
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428566
The court considered the liability of a local education authority for the unfair dismissal of a head teacher by a school which had since closed.
Held: The Employment Tribunal’s Order should be restored so that the proceedings will continue against the governing body in the name of the Education Authority and against the Education Authority directly.
Carnwath, Elias, Pitchford LJJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 92, [2011] ICR 1415
England and Wales
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428532
The claimant nurse’s successful claim of unfair dismissal had been overturned by the EAT. She now sought re-instatement of the decision. In restraining a naked patient in the midst of a violent epileptic fit, she had made a lewd remark.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The tribunal’s decision had been said to have involved substituting its own opinion for that of the employer. This was incorrect. The ET had applied the correct test. The remark had been humorous in intent, and the patient was unaware of it. The employer’s decision had been correctly found to be outside the range of reasonable responses open to it.
Longmore LJ discussed the role of the EAT: ‘It is important that, in cases of this kind, the EAT pays proper respect to the decision of the ET. It is the ET to whom Parliament has entrusted the responsibility of making what are, no doubt sometimes, difficult and borderline decisions in relation to the fairness of dismissal. An appeal to the EAT only lies on a point of law and it goes without saying that the EAT must not, under the guise of a charge of perversity, substitute its own judgment for that of the ET.’
Laws, Longmore, Stanley Burnton LJJ
[2011] IRLR 331, (2011) 118 BMLR 163, [2011] EWCA Civ 63
England and Wales
Appeal from – North West London Hospitals NHS Trust v Bowater EAT 14-Dec-2009
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL: Reasonableness of dismissal
While assisting in the restraint of a patient admitted to AandE, the female Claimant senior nurse sat astride his naked genitals and made a lewd comment for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428525
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Estoppel or abuse of process
Appeal by employer that an unofficial agreement with the GMB Union had been terminated by the employer contrary to the finding of the Employment Tribunal. Appeal dismissed. There was no perversity or disregard of evidence by the Tribunal. The decision was one the Tribunal were entitled to come to on the facts.
Birtles J
[2011] UKEAT 0290 – 10 – 0102
England and Wales
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428378
The defendant applied for an order declaring that the claim would better be brought in an employment tribunal and that accordingly the County court should decline jurisdiction.
Held: The application was dismissed: ‘ I reject the submission by the Defendant that convenience must be judged in some abstract way by reference to whether a case with the characteristics of that being considered by the Court would be more conveniently dealt with by an Employment Tribunal. On the true construction of Section 2(3), it cannot be more convenient for a claim to be disposed of separately by an Employment Tribunal in circumstances where the Employment Tribunal could not determine the claim on its merits but would be bound to refuse jurisdiction to deal with the claim because it was time barred. In those circumstances, whether or not the claim made by these Claimants will or will not prove to be a complex one is not a relevant consideration.’
Colin Edelman QC
[2010] EWHC 3303 (QB), [2011] IRLR 309
Equal Pay Act 1970 2(3), Employment Rights (Dispute Resolution) Act 1998 1(2)(a), Industrial Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
England and Wales
Cited – Sorbie v Trust House Forte Hotels EAT 1976
Phillips J considered an alteration to the terms of an employment contract, saying: ‘One then goes on to see what the effect as prescribed is, and it is that that term, so identified, in the appellants’ contracts shall be treated, as so modified, as . .
Cited – Levez etc v T H Jennings (Harlow Pools) Ltd (No 2) EAT 1-Oct-1999
The restriction on the awards of compensation for sex discrimination to payments in respect of a period of two years prior to the claim was unlawful. Claims of other natures were not so limited, and this could not be supported, since it was in . .
Cited – EA Gutridge and Others v Sodexo and Another CA 14-Jul-2009
The employees appealed against dismissal of their equal pay claims. They said that having been transferred under a TUPE arrangement, and now having to claim against the new employer, they argued that the six months time limit started from the time . .
Cited – McAvoy and Others v Llewellyn and Others; Hartlepool Borough Council v Llewellyn and Others EAT 24-Jun-2009
EAT EQUAL PAY ACT – Material factor defence
Male colleagues of female equal pay claimants may bring ‘piggyback’ contingent claims using the female claimants as comparators and may recover sums equivalent to . .
Cited – Preston and Others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and Others, Fletcher and Others v Midland Bank Plc (No 2) HL 8-Feb-2001
Part-time workers claimed that they had been unlawfully excluded from occupational pension schemes because membership was dependent on an employee working a minimum number of hours per week and that that was discriminatory because a considerably . .
Cited – Defrenne v Sabena (No 2) ECJ 8-Apr-1976
ECJ The principle that men and women should receive equal pay, which is laid down by article 119, is one of the foundations of the community. It may be relied on before the national courts. These courts have a . .
Appeal from – Birmingham City Council v Abdulla and Others CA 29-Nov-2011
The Council appealed against an order dismissing its application for the claimants’ claims under equal pay legislation to be struck out for want of jurisdiction. The claims had been brought in the High Court rather than te hEmployment Tribunal, thus . .
At first instance – Birmingham City Council v Abdulla and Others SC 24-Oct-2012
Former employees wished to argue that they had been discriminated against whilst employed by the Council. Being out of time for Employment Tribunal Proceedings, they sought to bring their cases in the ordinary courts. The Council now appealed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428324
Renewed application for permission to appeal.
[2011] EWCA Civ 36
England and Wales
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428363
EAT Unfair dismissal – redundancy – selection for new role – fairness
The Claimant was made redundant by the Respondent consequent upon a re-organisation. He, along with others, applied for a new post created by the re-organisation. The Respondent prepared, but did not in all respects adhere to, a job specification and format (with scoring) for interview. The Claimant was unsuccessful. The Tribunal held that his dismissal was fair. Held – the Tribunal did not err in law. Authorities, including Ralph Martindale and Co v Harris UKEAT/0166/07, discussed.
Richardson J
[2011] IRLR 376, [2011] UKEAT 0314 – 10 – 0701
England and Wales
Cited – Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd v Monte-D’Cruz EAT 1-Mar-2012
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal
Claimant dismissed for redundancy following a reorganisation, having been interviewed for, but not offered, an alternative job – Tribunal holds dismissal to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428243
EAT RIGHT TO BE ACCOMPANIED
The Employment Tribunal did not err in holding that the Claimant, a foster carer, was not a worker within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and 1999. Accordingly she could not claim the right to trade union representation pursuant to section 10 of the Employment Rights Act 1999 at a meeting of a Fostering Panel which was to consider withdrawing her approval as a foster parent.
The Employment Tribunal was bound as is the Employment Appeal Tribunal by the judgments of the Court of Appeal in W v Essex County Council [1998] 3 WLR 534 and Rowlands v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council [1999] EWCA Civ 1116 to hold that the relationship between foster carer and local authority was not contractual. It is prerequisite that a ‘worker’ as defined in Employment Rights Act 1996 section 230(3) which is incorporated in the definition of ‘worker’ for the purposes of Employment Rights Act 1999 sections 10 to 12 works under a contract. The Employment Tribunal did not err in holding that the Claimant did not work for the Respondent pursuant to a contract.
Slade J
[2011] UKEAT 0230 – 10 – 2401
Employment Rights Act 1996 230(3), Employment Rights Act 1999 10 11 12
Cited – W 1-6 v Essex County Council and Another CA 2-Apr-1998
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 . .
Cited – Rowlands v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council CA 26-Mar-1999
The defendant appealed a finding of the EAT that the claimant had standing to claim discrimination under the Act in the way her application to be a foster mother had been treated.
Held: After the EAT decision in W v Essex, it was clear that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428242
The claimant had been found to have been unfailry dismissed by respondent, on the termination of her employment as an assistant Clerk to the Justices. The EAT had upheld her claim, but had at first rejected her claim for long-term and retirement compensation under the 1978 Regulations. On remittal of the case, they had found in her favour. The Secretary’s appeal had failed and he now appealed against that decision. The issue was whether the claimant’s position with the Magistrates Court was such that on her dismissal, she fell entitled to claim compensation under the 1978 Regulations. The Secretary of State argued that, in effect, her role was administrative.
Pill, Arden, Jackson LLJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 23
Justices of the Peace Act 1949 (Compensation) Regulations 1978 3, Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999 10
England and Wales
Appeal from – Secretary of State for Justice v Slee (2) Admn 22-Jan-2010
The claimant had been unfairly dismissed from her position as justices’ clerk. After appeal her additional claims for retirement and other compensation under the 1978 Regulations had been remitted to the Employment tribunal which had reconsidered . .
See Also – Secretary of State for Justice v Slee EAT 19-Jul-2007
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Constructive dismissal
Maternity Rights and Parental Leave – Sex discrimination
The Claimant was employed as a Magistrates’ Clerk and she brought successful claims to the . .
Cited – Dobie v Burns International Security Services (UK) Ltd CA 14-May-1984
The employee worked as a security officer for the appellant, which was in turn employed by the respondent to provide security for an airport controlled by the Merseyside City Council. The Council had the right of approval of any employee of the . .
Cited – Berkshire and Oxfordshire Magistrates’ Courts v Gannon and Another QBD 10-May-2000
The applicants had been employed on the administrative staff of a Magistrates’ Court, spending 25-40% of their working day performing duties delegated to them by the clerk to the justices. The Tribunal held that, as an ‘appreciable’ part of their . .
Cited – Bowden v Northamptonshire Magistrates Court Committee and Another CA 16-Feb-1993
B was appointed by NMCC as ‘Chief Executive to the MCC’.
Held: He was not to be ’employed in assisting’ a JC within the meaning of the Regulations. On appointment as Chief Executive, B ceased to be a JC, and became an employee of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428228
[2000] UKEAT 1415 – 99 – 1303
England and Wales
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.264877
Construction of compromise agreement.
[2005] EWCA Civ 532, [2005] ICR 1260, [2005] IRLR 552
Employment Rights Act 1996 8203
England and Wales
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.224519
Renewed application for permission to appeal against a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal
[2002] EWCA Civ 1463
England and Wales
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.217585
Leave to appeal application
[2002] EWCA Civ 1455
England and Wales
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.217568
[1999] UKEAT 397 – 98 – 0103
England and Wales
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.205033
[1998] UKEAT 307 – 98 – 2210
England and Wales
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.206854
[1994] UKEAT 776 – 94 – 0310
England and Wales
See Also – Parkinson v March Consulting Ltd EAT 24-Jul-1995
. .
See Also – Parkinson v March Consulting Ltd CA 9-Jan-1997
Reason for dismissal must be assessed in context of the date notice given. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.209787
[1998] UKEAT 1260 – 98 – 0211
England and Wales
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.206913
[1998] UKEAT 908 – 98 – 0111
England and Wales
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.206878
[1998] UKEAT 1055 – 98 – 1311
England and Wales
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.206877
[1994] UKEAT 738 – 93 – 1406
England and Wales
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.210004
[1998] UKEAT 708 – 98 – 0110
England and Wales
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.206842
[1998] UKEAT 962 – 98 – 0111
England and Wales
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.206910
[1998] UKEAT 1043 – 98 – 0210
England and Wales
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.206846
[2002] EWCA Civ 73
England and Wales
See Also – Simpson v Kensington Housing Trust EAT 8-Dec-2000
. .
See Also – Simpson v Kensington Housing Trust EAT 5-Oct-2001
EAT Maternity Rights and Parental Leave . .
See Also – Simpson v Kensington Housing Trust CA 12-Mar-2002
Application for leave to appeal. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.216743
[1998] UKEAT 188 – 98 – 1311
England and Wales
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.206900
[1998] UKEAT 909 – 98 – 0111
England and Wales
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.206873
[1998] UKEAT 709 – 98 – 0110
England and Wales
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.206856
[1998] UKEAT 701 – 98 – 0110
England and Wales
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.206853
[2003] EWCA Civ 1153
England and Wales
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.185550
EAT Public Interest Disclosure
Mr Recorder Luba QC
[2003] EAT 819 – 02 – 1305, [2003] UKEAT 0819 – 02 – 1305, [2003] UKEAT 819 – 02 – 1305, EAT/819/02
England and Wales
See All – Odong v Chubb Security Personnel EAT 4-Nov-2002
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.191598