EAT TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS
Transfer
Whether temporary cessation of operation at putative transfer date prevents relevant transfer as Employment Tribunal held. Answer: No.
Appeal allowed, case remitted for Employment Tribunal merits hearing.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0528 – 09 – 1203

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.424996

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Constructive dismissal
CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Wrongful dismissal
Appellant’s appeal to the effect that the Employment Tribunal should have found that he had been wrongfully dismissed as at 28 March 2008, and that the Respondent was in breach of contract in putting him on ‘garden leave’, dismissed. The Appellant’s claim did not include any case that he had been dismissed as at 28 March 2008, on the findings in fact, the Appellant had not been dismissed by the Respondent and, on the facts of the case, the Respondent had been entitled to put the Claimant on ‘garden leave’ on 13 March 2008.
Cross-appeal that the Employment Tribunal had erred in finding that the Respondent had wrongfully dismissed the Claimant so as to disentitle them from recovering course fees, upheld. Order pronounced by the Employment Appeal Tribunal finding the Appellant liable to repay course fees to the Respondent.

Judges:

Smith Hon

Citations:

[2010] IRLR 1016, [2010] UKEAT 0064 – 09 – 2707

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425008

EAT TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS – Consultation and other information
Seller of care home business gave some limited information to employees about impending transfer but failed to arrange for election of ‘appropriate representatives’ as required by reg. 14 of Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 and accordingly gave no information to, and did not consult with, any such representatives.
Tribunal finds breaches of regs. 13 (2) and (6), as well as reg. 14, of TUPE and orders transferor to pay 13 weeks pay, being the maximum compensation in accordance with reg. 15: but makes no award against transferee.
HELD:
(1) Tribunal’s finding of liability against transferor upheld – Contention that there was no duty to inform under reg. 13 (2) unless transferor were envisaging ‘measures’ on which it was necessary to consult under reg. 13 (6) rejected – Institution of Professional Civil Servants v Secretary of State for Defence [1987] IRLR 373 followed
(2) Wrong in principle to award maximum compensation in circumstances where some (though inadequate) information had been given and the measures requiring consultation were of very limited significance – Award of seven weeks pay substituted
(3) Tribunal was obliged by reg. 15 (9) to find transferee jointly and severally liable with transferor.

Judges:

Underhill P J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0057 – 09 – 1606, [2011] IRLR 11

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 14

Employment

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425006

EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Reasonable adjustments
Tribunal in finding a failure to make reasonable adjustments under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 failed to follow the guidance set out in Environment Agency v Rowan [2008] ICR 218.

Judges:

Ansell J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0435 – 09 – 1309

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Environment Agency v Rowan EAT 1-Nov-2007
EAT Practice and Procedure – Perversity
Disability discrimination – Reasonable adjustments
An Employment Tribunal considering a claim that an employer has discriminated against an employee pursuant to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 24 August 2022; Ref: scu.423815

EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal.

Judges:

The Honourable Lord Johnston

Citations:

EAT/592/01

Links:

EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 24 August 2022; Ref: scu.255400

Citations:

[1997] UKEAT 639 – 96 – 2904

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 24 August 2022; Ref: scu.207369

Citations:

[1997] UKEAT 1215 – 96 – 2904

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 24 August 2022; Ref: scu.207408

EAT Practice and Procedure – Striking-out

Judges:

His Hon Judge D Serota QC

Citations:

UKEAT/777/02 UKEAT/778/02 and U, [2003] UKEAT 0777 – 02 – 2309

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 24 August 2022; Ref: scu.202329

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Exclusions including worker

Judges:

The Honourable Lord Johnston

Citations:

EATS/0086/04, [2004] UKEAT 0086 – 03 – 3006

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Employment

Updated: 24 August 2022; Ref: scu.198689

Citations:

[2003] EAT 0838 – 02 – 1302, [2003] UKEAT 0838 – 02 – 1302

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 24 August 2022; Ref: scu.191382

Citations:

[1998] UKEAT 985 – 98 – 0111

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 24 August 2022; Ref: scu.206874

Citations:

[1998] UKEAT 928 – 97 – 0511

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 24 August 2022; Ref: scu.206907

Citations:

[2004] UKEAT 0025 – 04 – 3006

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 24 August 2022; Ref: scu.200037

EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (P)

Citations:

EAT/431/01, EAT/128/01, [2002] UKEAT 0128 – 01 – 2307

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Sivanandan v London Borough of Enfield EAT 1-May-1998
. .
See Also – Sivanandan v London Borough of Enfield and others EAT 1-Oct-1998
. .
See Also – Sivanandan v London Borough of Enfield and others EAT 1-Feb-1999
. .
See Also – Sivanandan v Enfield and others EAT 25-Apr-2001
. .
See Also – Sivanandan v Enfield and Another EAT 11-Jul-2001
. .
See Also – Sivanandan v Enfield and others EAT 26-Jul-2001
. .
See Also – Sivanandan v London Borough of Enfield and Another EAT 26-Jul-2001
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Sivanandan v London Borough of Enfield and others CA 7-Oct-2002
. .
See Also – London Borough of Enfield v Sivanandan QBD 5-Apr-2004
. .
See Also – London Borough of Enfield v Sivanandan CA 20-Jan-2005
The employee first issued a claim in the employment tribunal, and then in the High Court. The defendant company argued that the tribunal proceedings were not concluded before the High Court proceedings were issued, but only later when they were . .
See Also – London Borough of Enfield v Sivanandan EAT 12-Sep-2005
EAT Practice and Procedure – Striking-out/dismissal.
EAT Practice and Procedure – Striking-out/dismissal. . .
See Also – London Borough of Enfield v Sivanandan CA 29-Jun-2006
Application for civil restraint order. . .
See Also – Sivanandan v London Borough of Enfield EAT 19-Oct-2006
EAT Practice and Procedure – Estoppel or Abuse of Process. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 24 August 2022; Ref: scu.175477

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL
The Employment Tribunal was entitled on the evidence before it to conclude that the Claimant had participated in the unlawful detention of a private enquiry agent, although there was evidence before the Employment Tribunal that supported the Claimant’s case. The weighing up of conflicting evidence was a matter solely for the Employment Tribunal and complaints as to its findings did not (in the absence of perversity) raise any point of law.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0184 – 10 – 1008

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 23 August 2022; Ref: scu.423244

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Automatically unfair reasons
1.Tribunal in error in holding that a letter inviting an employee to a meeting and enclosing a police report and witness statement did not comply with Step 1.
2.Tribunal correct in finding that dismissal was unfair when the police employers had held a Convictions Board to deal with dismissal although the employer had not received a conviction or warning but only accepted a fixed penalty notice.

Judges:

Ansell QC J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0518 – 09 – 1307

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 23 August 2022; Ref: scu.423243

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – 2002 Act and pre-action requirements
The Employment Tribunal was in error when it held that matters advanced at a hearing had been the subject matter of a grievance. Parties could not be added as Respondents to a discrimination claim unless they were identified in the grievance.
It was not possible to add by amendment claims in respect of matters arising after the date of a grievance when no further grievance had been issued.

Judges:

Serota QC J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0348 – 10 – 1008

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 23 August 2022; Ref: scu.423245

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal
Appeal allowed. Employment Tribunal wrongly substituted its views for those of employer as to reasonableness of dismissal.

Judges:

Serota QC J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0131 – 10 – 0308

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421597

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Time for appealing
No exceptional reasons were given by an Appellant for his late submission of a fresh Notice of Appeal under rule 3(8). He failed properly to prioritise this with his other affairs relating to the United Nations and his law degree. Although the Respondent conceded the Registrar erred in law, her decision not to allow the Notice of Appeal out of time was correct.

Judges:

McMullen QC J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 1146 – 09 – 2907, [2011] ICR 174

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421595

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal
CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Written particulars
The Employment Tribunal made two mistakes of fact which made the Judgment perverse. It could not be said to be unarguably right, and so was remitted to a different Employment Tribunal.
The right under Employment Rights Act 1996 s1 to written particulars does not apply to the Claimant as she was employed before 30 November 1993, and so an award under Employment Act 2002 s38 was set aside.

Judges:

McMullen QC J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0517 – 09 – 3007

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 1, Employment Act 2002 38

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421588

EAT RACE DISCRIMINATION – Direct
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal
An Employment Tribunal did not err in dismissing claims of race discrimination and unfair dismissal following a full investigation of allegations of abuse by nursing staff.

Judges:

McMullen QC J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0099 – 10 – 2904

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421592

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Compensation
An Employment Tribunal assessing loss under s123 Employment Rights Act 1996 did not err when it did not take account of the employer’s ability to pay, a matter outside the section.

Judges:

McMullen QC J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 1477 – 09 – 1407

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 123

Employment

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421594

EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Disability
In considering the likely duration of an impairment the Employment Judge misconstrued the meaning of ‘likely’ and wrongly regarded as determinative the availability of potentially effective treatment, whereas that should only have been considered as one of the relevant factors to be considered.

Judges:

Wilkie J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0091 – 10 – 2307

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421593

EAT EQUAL PAY ACT – Case management
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Disclosure
Equal pay claims. Pre hearing review with Employment Judge and lay members, to consider validity of Job Evaluation Scheme and whether there were reasonable grounds for suspecting that evaluations in terms of that scheme contravened section 2A(2A) (a) or (b) of the Equal Pay Act 1970. Employers ordered to provide additional information in terms of an order bearing to be in exercise of the powers conferred by rule 10 of the Employment Tribunal Rules and bearing to be issued by Employment Judge alone. On appeal, order held to be incompetent; since the Employment Tribunal was constituted as a tribunal of three, whilst rule 18(2) conferred power to ‘issue any order in accordance with rule 10’ that power required to be exercised by the whole Tribunal and could not be exercised by the Employment Judge alone. If, alternatively, the Employment Judge’s intention was to issue a standalone case management order under rule 10, she should not have sat with members to hear argument. Either way, the order was not competently made.

Judges:

Smith J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0067 – 09 – 3007

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Equal Pay Act 1970 2A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421529

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appearance/response
At a review of a default judgment, made because of the late response, the Employment Judge did not consider the prospect of its success. Given that error, the EAT set aside the review judgment and the default judgment and then directed the response be accepted out of time.

Judges:

McMullen QC J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0527 – 09 – 0807

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Kwik Save Stores Ltd v Swain EAT 1997
An appellate court whose jurisdiction is limited to matters of law can only interfere where there has been a breach of well-established legal principles such as failing to take account of relevant factors.
When considering barring a party for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421528

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Postponement or stay
Tribunal in error in refusing to stay further a hearing in relation to disability where the day to day activities of the employee, a service police officer, were also the subject of a police fraud investigation.

Judges:

Ansell J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0322 – 10 – 1407

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421527

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL
JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – 2002 Act and pre-action requirements
This appeal raised the question of the employers’ compliance with step 1 of the statutory dismissal procedure in a case of dismissal for redundancy; and whether the Employment Tribunal’s decision that there had been compliance was arrived at in error. ET’s decision upheld on the facts. Appeal dismissed.

Judges:

Cox J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0318 – 09 – 2605

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421526

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Time for appealing
The Appellant completed and signed a Notice of Appeal on 23 September 2009 but his lay representative made a mistake by calculating that the deadline expired on 7 and not 5 October 2009, and he lodged it 2 days out of time. There was no explanation for the delay up to the deadline and discretion was refused under rule 37.

Judges:

McMullen QC

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 1315 – 09 – 0807

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421389

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL
Reasonableness of dismissal
S.98A(2) ERA
The Employment Tribunal did not err in law or substitute its own judgment in concluding that meetings: where the employee’s assessment score in a redundancy selection exercise were handed to her during the meeting; and where the decision to dismiss had already been taken whatever she might have said did not satisfy step 2 of the statutory procedure.
Where the employer counted the same incident twice under different headings in the matrix and where that made the difference between being selected and not being selected for redundancy, the Tribunal did not err or substitute its own judgment in concluding that the dismissal was unfair.

Judges:

Wilkie J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0129 – 10 – 0308

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421395

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal
Appeal from a finding of unfair dismissal allowed. The Employment Tribunal had failed to give adequate reasons for its decision. Further the Employment Tribunal erred in holding that the burden of proof rested on the employer to show reasonable grounds for its belief in the Claimant’s misconduct based on a reasonable investigation. It failed to note that since the decision in British Home Stores v Burchell [1978] IRLR 379 the unfair dismissal legislation has been amended so that the burden of proof on the issue of the reasonableness of the dismissal is neutral (Sheffield Health and Social Care NHS Foundation Trust v Crabtree UKEAT/0331/09).

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0485 – 09 – 1606

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421382

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Case management
Whistleblowing claim but not properly particularised. Respondent sought further particulars and case management conference. Employment Tribunal refused to order them or to hold case management conference. Respondent appealed.
Employment Appeal Tribunal
Held: that the Claimant provide further and better particulars of his claim, namely, (i), what the protected disclosure is that he claims to have made; (ii), to whom, when and how he made the alleged disclosure; and (iii), how that disclosure is alleged to have led to his dismissal.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0156 – 10 – 3006

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421387

EAT TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS
Economic technical or organisational reason
The 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 complaint of a breach of regulation 13(6) had been made by the Claimants nor did they have standing to do so. It was not raised in the course of the hearing and the Employment Tribunal did not invite submissions on the issue.
The Tribunal did not err in holding that the Claimants had been dismissed whether constructively or by application of Regulation 4(9).
The Employment Tribunal did not err in finding that the dismissals of the Claimants were for an organisational reason entailing changes in the workforce within the meaning of TUPE regulation 7(2). The changes affected a section of the workforce, the transferred employees. They did not have to affect the whole of the workforce to fall within regulation 7(2). Berriman v Delabole Slate Ltd [1985] ICR 546 considered. Appeal allowed. Case remitted to the same Employment Tribunal for consideration of whether the dismissals were fair or unfair within the meaning of section 98(4).

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0273 – 09 – 2707

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 13(6), Employment Rights Act 1996 98(4)

Citing:

Considered – Berriman v Delabole Slate Ltd CA 1985
Browne-Wilkinson LJ described the potential difficulty of fitting together the concept of fairness and a constructive dismissal, but said: ‘In our judgment, the only way in which the statutory requirements . . can be made to fit a case of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421393

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Absence of party
New evidence on appeal
An Employment Tribunal dismissed the Appellant’s claim. He had failed to attend the hearing before it and an application made on his behalf for an adjournment because of lack of representation and on medical grounds was refused. Fresh evidence, a doctor’s letter obtained after the refusal of an adjournment, was admitted by the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The letter contained advice given by the doctor to the Appellant the day before the hearing that for medical reasons he was unfit to represent himself. Applying Teinaz v London Borough of Wandsworth [2002] IRLR 721, if the Employment Tribunal had seen the doctor’s letter it would have granted the adjournment.
Appeal allowed. Decision to dismiss the Claimant’s claim set aside. Claim remitted to an Employment Tribunal for hearing.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0094 – 10 – 1706

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421381

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – 2002 Act and pre-action requirements
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Reasonable adjustments
Claimant incapacitated from driving duties as a result of a seizure – Dismissed – Claim originally pleaded as unfair dismissal – Seeks to amend to claim under Disability Discrimination Act 1995 that dismissal was the result of a failure to make reasonable adjustments that would have permitted him to remain in employment but not undertake driving duties – Employer resists on basis that Claimant had not lodged a corresponding grievance and that claim was accordingly debarred by s.32 of Employment Act 2002 – Tribunal holds that grievance procedure did not apply by reason of reg. 6 (5) of Employment Act 2002 (Dispute Resolution) Regulations 2004 and allows amendment.
HELD: Tribunal correct to apply reg. 6 (5) – It was immaterial that as a matter of formal analysis the dismissal was the result of the acts complained of rather than being relied on as itself an act of discrimination.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0047 – 09 – 0906

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421386

EAT UNLAWFUL DEDUCTION FROM WAGES
The Claimant (who was a dentist) entered into a contract to provide dental services for the Respondent. The Employment Tribunal found that he was not an ’employee’ within the meaning of section 230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 but that he was a ‘worker’ within the meaning of that provision. The Respondent appeals.
Held (allowing the appeal):-
The Claimant was not a ‘worker’ as he did not ‘undertake to do or perform personally any work or services’ as required by section 230(3) because there was no obligation on the Claimant to do work as he could delegate his duties.
Dicta in Byrne Brothers (Formwork) Limited v Baird and Others [2002] IRLR 96[25]; James v Redcats (Brands) Limited [2007] IRLR 296[78]; Express and Echo Publications Limited v Tanton [1999] IRLR 367[31]; Jorzca v Premier Groundworks [2009] All ER (D) 22 [25] and Archer-Hoblin Contractors v MacGettigal [2009] UKEAT/0037/09/0307 [43] applied.
Dicta in Redrow Homes (Yorkshire) Limited v Buckborough [2009] IRLR 34[56] not followed.

Judges:

Silber J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0532 – 09 – 1208

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 230(3)

Employment

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421515

EAT FIXED TERM REGULATIONS
The Employment Tribunal erred in determining whether less favourable terms in a fixed-term worker’s contract had been justified before deciding the reason for the difference between the contractual terms of a fixed-term worker and those of his comparator. They erred in deciding that because the less favourable terms had not been justified, the reason for such terms was that the Claimant was a fixed-term worker. Further the Tribunal erred in failing to consider whether the differences in the jobs between the Claimant and his comparator justified his less favourable terms.
Appeal allowed. Case remitted for rehearing to a different Employment Tribunal.

Judges:

Slade J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0035 – 10 – 1006

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421384

EAT SEX DISCRIMINATION – Pregnancy and discrimination
Whether detriment complained of by Claimant was unfavourable treatment on the grounds that she was on maternity leave (Sex Discrimination Act 1975, s3A)? Employment Tribunal found on the facts that it was not. That finding was a permissible one on the facts; there was no error in the ET’s application of the law, particularly in answering Lord Nicholls’ reason why question (see Shamoon).
Appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0541 – 09 – 0207

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421391

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL
Reasonableness of dismissal
Procedural fairness/automatically unfair dismissal
The Claimant, a senior legal executive, was found in disciplinary proceedings to have claimed sick pay while on holiday, and not been truthful in his answers on return-to-work. On appeal the substantive charges against him were dismissed but the dishonesty was upheld and he was dismissed. The Employment Tribunal correctly found the reason for dismissal and that it was a reasonable response. It carried out all three steps in the 2002 Act regime. It correctly rejected the claim of disparity of treatment as the comparator was not apt.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0465 – 09 – 1604

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421380

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity
Employment Judge wrongly purported to decide a claim of unfair dismissal when she had no jurisdiction because sitting alone – Decision revoked on review – Same Judge chairs fresh (full) Tribunal – Application that she recuse herself dismissed.
Held: Judge should have recused herself – There was apparent unfairness when a three-person tribunal is chaired by a person who has already expressed a definitive opinion on the issues.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0507 – 09 – 0607

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 148

Employment

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421390

Judges:

Richard Seymours QC J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 1867 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421261

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 115 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.264086

The appeal failed.

Citations:

[1979] ICR 84

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.471783

The court considered a claim for constructive dismissal where the parties made a genuine mistake as to the test for anticipatory breach.
Held: Sir John Donaldson MR said: ‘But, for my part, I would not have thought it necessary to give any particular time to this point because the essential features of a claim for constructive [dismissal] are two-fold; first, that the conduct of the employer relied upon must be such as to amount to a repudiation by him of the contract of service: it has to be, in popular language, expulsive conduct – to the lawyer repudiatory conduct; and, second, that the employee has left because of that conduct. The mere fact that a party to a contract takes a view of its construction which is ultimately shown to be wrong, does not of itself constitute repudiatory conduct. It has to be shown that he did not intend to be bound by the contract as properly construed. There is no finding by the Industrial Tribunal that that was the case here.’

Judges:

Sir John Donaldson MR

Citations:

[1987] IRLR 58

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Woodar Investment Development Ltd v Wimpey Construction UK Ltd HL 14-Feb-1980
Wimpey agreed to buy land from Woodar for a sum of andpound;850,000 of which andpound;150,000 was to be paid to Transworld. A month later Wimpey sent a letter purporting to rescind the contract and Woodar sued for damages including the . .
Cited – Financial Techniques (Planning Services) Ltd v Hughes CA 1981
A genuine dispute as to wages owed will not necessarily amount to a repudiatory breach of contract on the part of the employer. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Haberdasher’s Monmount School for Girls v Turner EAT 8-Mar-2004
EAT Unfair Dismissal
ET incorrectly applied Sir John Donaldson’s dictum in Bridgen [1987] IRLR 58 (based on Woodar v Wimpey): assertion of wrong interpretation of contract not enough for repudiation, which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.416730

Citations:

[1993] UKEAT 52 – 92 – 1501

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.210406

Citations:

[1993] UKEAT 583 – 90 – 2001

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.210391

(Staff Regulations)

Citations:

T-294/02, [2004] EUECJ T-294/02

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Employment

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.215899

Pensions entitlement

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Lewison

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2320 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – British Movietone News Limited v London and District Cinemas Limited HL 26-Jul-1951
Film distributors contracted to supply newsreels at a cinematic theatre. The contract was for a minimum of 26 weeks, and after on termination by the distributors on four weeks notice thereafter, but by the cinema on four weeks after the first month. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Armitage v Staveley Industries Plc CA 1-Jul-2005
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.216634

EAT Practice and Procedure – Application/Claim.

Judges:

The Honourable Lord Johnston

Citations:

[2004] UKEAT 0047 – 04 – 1910, EATS/0047/04

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.219746

Employees were not unfairly dismissed when the insolvent business was sold by the receivers.

Citations:

Times 14-Feb-1994, [1993] UKEAT 529 – 92 – 2211

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.210818

Citations:

[2001] UKEAT 128 – 01 – 2607

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Sivanandan v London Borough of Enfield EAT 1-May-1998
. .
See Also – Sivanandan v London Borough of Enfield and others EAT 1-Oct-1998
. .
See Also – Sivanandan v London Borough of Enfield and others EAT 1-Feb-1999
. .
See Also – Sivanandan v Enfield and others EAT 25-Apr-2001
. .
See Also – Sivanandan v Enfield and Another EAT 11-Jul-2001
. .
See Also – Sivanandan v Enfield and others EAT 26-Jul-2001
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Sivanandan v London Borough of Enfield and others EAT 23-Jul-2002
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal . .
See Also – Sivanandan v London Borough of Enfield and others CA 7-Oct-2002
. .
See Also – London Borough of Enfield v Sivanandan QBD 5-Apr-2004
. .
See Also – London Borough of Enfield v Sivanandan CA 20-Jan-2005
The employee first issued a claim in the employment tribunal, and then in the High Court. The defendant company argued that the tribunal proceedings were not concluded before the High Court proceedings were issued, but only later when they were . .
See Also – London Borough of Enfield v Sivanandan EAT 12-Sep-2005
EAT Practice and Procedure – Striking-out/dismissal.
EAT Practice and Procedure – Striking-out/dismissal. . .
See Also – London Borough of Enfield v Sivanandan CA 29-Jun-2006
Application for civil restraint order. . .
See Also – Sivanandan v London Borough of Enfield EAT 19-Oct-2006
EAT Practice and Procedure – Estoppel or Abuse of Process. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.204115

Citations:

[1993] UKEAT 5 – 92 – 1801

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.210419

Citations:

[1997] UKEAT 209 – 97 – 2904

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.207417

EAT Practice and Procedure – Striking-out/dismissal.

Judges:

His Hon Judge D M Levy QC

Citations:

[2003] EAT 0358 – 03 – 2606, [2003] UKEAT 0358 – 03 – 2606, EAT/358/03

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.191650

Citations:

[2001] UKEAT 469 – 00 – 2504

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Sivanandan v London Borough of Enfield EAT 1-May-1998
. .
See Also – Sivanandan v London Borough of Enfield and others EAT 1-Oct-1998
. .
See Also – Sivanandan v London Borough of Enfield and others EAT 1-Feb-1999
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Sivanandan v Enfield and Another EAT 11-Jul-2001
. .
See Also – Sivanandan v Enfield and others EAT 26-Jul-2001
. .
See Also – Sivanandan v London Borough of Enfield and Another EAT 26-Jul-2001
. .
See Also – Sivanandan v London Borough of Enfield and others EAT 23-Jul-2002
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal . .
See Also – Sivanandan v London Borough of Enfield and others CA 7-Oct-2002
. .
See Also – London Borough of Enfield v Sivanandan QBD 5-Apr-2004
. .
See Also – London Borough of Enfield v Sivanandan CA 20-Jan-2005
The employee first issued a claim in the employment tribunal, and then in the High Court. The defendant company argued that the tribunal proceedings were not concluded before the High Court proceedings were issued, but only later when they were . .
See Also – London Borough of Enfield v Sivanandan EAT 12-Sep-2005
EAT Practice and Procedure – Striking-out/dismissal.
EAT Practice and Procedure – Striking-out/dismissal. . .
See Also – London Borough of Enfield v Sivanandan CA 29-Jun-2006
Application for civil restraint order. . .
See Also – Sivanandan v London Borough of Enfield EAT 19-Oct-2006
EAT Practice and Procedure – Estoppel or Abuse of Process. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.203817

Citations:

[2003] UKEAT 1086 – 02 – 0707

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.191737

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 1846

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Addoo v Newham Healthcare NHS Trust EAT 29-Jan-1997
. .
See Also – Addoo v Newham Healthcare NHS Trust EAT 14-Apr-1999
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.142242

Whether the doctrine of res judicata applies to the disciplinary proceedings of a trade union.

Judges:

Lord Justice Singh

Citations:

[2021] EWCA Civ 199

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.658684

A genuine dispute as to wages owed will not necessarily amount to a repudiatory breach of contract on the part of the employer.

Judges:

Templeman LJ

Citations:

[1981] IRLR 32

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Bridgen v Lancashire County Council CA 1987
The court considered a claim for constructive dismissal where the parties made a genuine mistake as to the test for anticipatory breach.
Held: Sir John Donaldson MR said: ‘But, for my part, I would not have thought it necessary to give any . .
Cited – Haberdasher’s Monmount School for Girls v Turner EAT 8-Mar-2004
EAT Unfair Dismissal
ET incorrectly applied Sir John Donaldson’s dictum in Bridgen [1987] IRLR 58 (based on Woodar v Wimpey): assertion of wrong interpretation of contract not enough for repudiation, which . .
Cited – Haberdasher’s Monmount School for Girls v Turner EAT 8-Mar-2004
EAT Unfair Dismissal
ET incorrectly applied Sir John Donaldson’s dictum in Bridgen [1987] IRLR 58 (based on Woodar v Wimpey): assertion of wrong interpretation of contract not enough for repudiation, which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.416751

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL
Compensation
Only issue on which we allowed the appeal was whether the Employment Tribunal had erred in law in concluding the Claimant could be compensated for electing to train as a teacher. The Employment Tribunal failed to make sufficient findings of fact as to whether this was a realistic mitigation of loss or was this a decision to make a career change.

Judges:

Pugsley J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0516 – 09 – 0704

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.421065

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Parties
School governors’ liability for employment powers can include acts or statements by the local authority who are the contractual employers.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0210 – 10 – 2207

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.421015

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Constructive dismissal
Whether non-payment of four days holiday pay amounted to a repudiatory breach of the contract of employment. Relevance of the last straw doctrine.
Employment Tribunal entitled to conclude that Claimant was not constructively dismissed. Claimant’s appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0106 – 10 – 2506

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.421010

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Compensation
The Employment Tribunal used the simplified approach to pension loss in the Employment Judges’ Guide. This was an error of principle where the Claimant had long service, was in stable employment, was not in future employment liable to economic risk and could quantify the difference as between the simplified and the substantial approach. The latter should have been applied as provided by Guide para 4.13 and 4.14.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0070 – 10 – 2005

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.421009

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 account when considering whether a unilateral management policy had acquired contractual status. Those factors included: ”(a) whether the policy was drawn to the attention of employees; (b) whether it was followed without exception for a substantial period; (c) the number of occasions on which it was followed; (d) whether payments were made automatically; (e) whether the nature of communication of the policy supported the inference that the employers intended to be contractually bound; (f) whether the policy was adopted by agreement; (g) whether employees had a reasonable expectation that the enhanced payment would be made; (h) whether terms were incorporated in a written agreement; (i) whether the terms were consistently applied.’

Judges:

Peter Gibson, Potter LJJ, Sir Murray Stuart-Smith

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 946

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Albion Automotive Ltd v Walker and 21 others EAT 12-Oct-2001
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 . .

Cited by:

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 . .
Cited – Allen and Others v TRW Systems Ltd EAT 17-Jan-2013
allen_trwEAT2013
EAT CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Incorporation into contract
Redundancy policy containing provision for enhanced redundancy payments – formally agreed with works Advisory Council – promise added to Employee . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.420969

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity
Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke
Respondent constructively dismissed Appellant. The Employment Tribunal awarded compensation but in doing so it (1) limited the award for future loss of earnings to 31 December 2009; (2) reduced the award by 70 per cent to reflect Appellant’s contribution to his dismissal; and (c) awarded a 10 per cent uplift pursuant to s.31 of the Employment Act 2002. The manner of calculating the future loss of earnings did not appear from the judgment.
Held: the judgment was not Meek compliant and the case should be remitted to the same Tribunal for further consideration.

Judges:

Reid QC

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0154 – 10 – 1506

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Act 2002 31

Employment

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.420754

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Worker, employee or neither
The Claimant employee was given notice that his contract would expire on 1 December 2008.
By a letter dated 26 November 2008 the Respondent employer informed the Claimant employee ‘I write to confirm that you can be released today and will still be paid up to and including your notice period date Monday 1st December 2008’. The Claimant employee counter-signed this.
The Claimant employee submitted his application to the Employment Tribunal by email on 28 February 2009. The Respondent employer contended that this was outside the prescribed three month period because the effective date of termination of the Claimant’s contract of employment was 26 or 28 November 2008.
The Claimant submitted that the letter of 26 November 2008 did not alter the ‘effective date of termination’.
The Employment Judge upheld the contentions of the Respondent employer and held that the effective date of termination of the Claimant’s employment as stipulated in section 97 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was 26 November 2008.
The Claimant appealed
Held:
1. The appeal was allowed because by absolving the employee from working his period of notice, the effective date of termination was not altered (Lees v Greaves (Lees) Limited [1974 2 All ER 393 applied).
2. The effective date of termination could be altered by the parties expressly agreeing to do this (Palfrey v Transco plc [2004] IRLR 916 applied and TBA Industrial Products Limited v Moreland [1982] IRLR 331 distinguished) but that had not occurred in this case as the letter of 26 November 2010 did not alter the effective date of termination.

Judges:

Silber J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0137 – 10 – 1307

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 97

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Lees v Arthur Greaves (Lees) Limited CA 1974
The employee was dismissed in October but given six months notice. It was agreed that he should work out that notice until March. However, on 28 January 1972 the employee was persuaded to finish, accepting two months pay in lieu of working during . .
Cited – TBA Industrial Products Limited v Moreland CA 1981
Effective date of termination of employment. M had been told by letter that his Employment would finish on August the 2nd 1980, when he would receive a payment in lieu of notice then unexpired, and that, if he wished to leave before August 2nd, he . .
Cited – Palfrey v Transco Plc EAT 15-Mar-2004
EAT Employer gave notice of redundancy to expire on 31 May; termination date brought forward to 31 March with payment in lieu in respect of balance of period. ET found application not brought within 3 months of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.420757

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Claim in time and effective date of termination
TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS – Consultation and other information
The Employment Tribunal did not err in finding time ran for TUPE 2006 complaints from the date of transfer and for unfair dismissal claims from the effective date of termination, and correctly held the claims were made more than three months after the relevant dates. They were out of time.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0545 – 09 – 2704

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.420397

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL
STATUTORY DISCIPLINE AND GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES – Whether infringed
Employment Tribunal found that employers had complied with the statutory procedures in a redundancy dismissal. The question was whether they erred in so finding when the employee had not been informed as to how the chosen selection criteria were applied to him personally. Appeal by Claimant upheld, applying Alexander, and finding of automatic unfair dismissal substituted. Remitted to fresh ET for remedy to be determined.

Judges:

Cox J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0103 – 10 – 2705

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.420253

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Extension of time: reasonably practicable
Employer wrongly informed Claimant that he had three months in which to present an unfair dismissal when he only had six weeks – Claimant consulted solicitors, who negligently failed to notice the error – Claim presented two weeks out of time – Tribunal holds not reasonably practicable to present claim in time.
Held: allowing appeal, that it was reasonably practicable for Claimant to present claim in time because if his solicitor had given him advice of the kind he should reasonably have been given the employer’s mistake would have had no effect – Dedman [1974] ICR 53, Walls [1979] ICR 52 and Williams-Ryan [2008] ICR 193 followed – Sen [1993] IRLR 333 distinguished.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0540 – 09 – 2505

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.420255

EAT This is an appeal from the refusal of the Employment Tribunal to make an order prohibiting the Respondents from being engaged with running an employment agency. The Employment Tribunal decision was in our view so flawed in its logic that we remitted the case to another Employment Tribunal.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0025 – 10 – 0904

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.420252

EAT Reasonableness of dismissal
Procedural fairness/automatically unfair dismissal
Appeal by employers and cross-appeal by employee against Employment Tribunal’s finding of unfair dismissal for gross misconduct. Case turned on the question of an adequate investigation and the fairness of the disciplinary procedure overall. ET found to have erred in its approach, to have substituted its own view of matters for that of the employers and to have failed to make adequate factual findings and adequately explain its reasoning. Appeal allowed. Cross-appeal dismissed. Matter remitted for re-hearing before fresh tribunal.

Judges:

Cox J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0277 – 09 – 2505

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

See Also – Boardman v Nugent Care Society and Another EAT 10-Jul-2012
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal
Appeal by employee against Employment Tribunal’s finding (majority decision) that claims of unfair and wrongful dismissal fail. Teacher dismissed for gross . .
First EAT – Clarence High School and Another v Boardman CA 15-Mar-2013
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.420256

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Striking-out/dismissal
Time for appealing
1. Appeal by Claimant against a judgment confirming that her claim was struck out by reason of non-compliance with an ‘unless order’. Appeal dismissed. There was no error of law in making the order. The Claimant’s contention that the effect of applying to vary or discharge an ‘unless order’ is to comply with the order is incorrect. Various other grounds of appeal rejected.
The Claimant has also sought leave to amend her Notice of Appeal to add an appeal against a judgment given dismissing her application for a review. This application was made notwithstanding that she had been refused an extension of time for appealing by the Registrar and that her appeal against that refusal had been dismissed. Application heard and dismissed by Registrar. Appeal dismissed. Held (1) it is the usual practice of the Appeal Tribunal to consider an original judgment and a review judgment as separate and to require a notice of appeal for each judgment or order. (2) Even if it is permissible to add an appeal against a different judgment or order by means of amendment, leave to amend ought only to be granted where the in accordance with the Appeal Tribunal’s usual practice an extension of time for appealing would be granted.

Judges:

Richardson J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0495 – 08 – 2306

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.420259

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Preliminary issues
Employer entitled to counterclaim under Article 4 Employment Tribunals (Extension of Jurisdiction) England and Wales Order 1994 when a bankrupt Claimant makes a claim for damages under s3(2) Employment Act 1996 whether or not claim is a nullity because Claimant has not obtained permission of the official receiver or an assignment of the claim before bringing it.

Judges:

Mitting J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0490 – 09 – 0705

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Tribunals (Extension of Jurisdiction) England & Wales Order 1994, Employment Act 1996 3(2)

Employment

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.420257

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Extension of time: reasonably practicable
It was not reasonably practicable for the Claimant to present his unfair dismissal claim in 3 months. But by waiting a further 11 days he went beyond a reasonable period: Employment Rights Act 1996 s111(2). The authorities on ‘reasonably practicable’ for primary limitation, and fault of advisers, were applicable to deciding what was a further reasonable period: Northumberland County Council v Thomson UKEAT/0209/07. The Employment Judge decision was upheld.

Judges:

McMullen QC J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0104 – 10 – 2105

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.420254

EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Reasonable adjustments
The Employment Tribunal did not err in deciding that the Respondent had not failed in their duty to make reasonable adjustments pursuant to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 Section 4A. On a fair reading of its judgment the Employment Tribunal considered all the relevant issues and concluded that the Respondent had devised and implemented a reasonable adjustment in its rehabilitation programme.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0509 – 09 – 2304

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.420251

EAT A penalty of andpound;20,000 was imposed by the Employment Appeal Tribunal on an employer which failed to comply with its obligations under the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004. Amicus v Macmillan Publishers Ltd [2007] IRLR 885 and Darnton v Bournemouth University UKEAT/0391/09/RN considered.

Judges:

Slade J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0526 – 09 – 2704

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004

Employment

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.420250

EAT Amendment
Striking-out/dismissal
An Employment Judge erred in refusing permission to amend an ET1 to add an associative disability discrimination claim on the ground that no statutory grievance had been raised in respect of such a claim. If the proposed amendment was of or included complaint of discrimination by dismissal no such grievance was required. The application to amend and the application for setting aside the revocation of permission to amend was remitted to an Employment Judge for determination.
An Employment Judge did not err in revoking an unless order and restoring an ET3 which had been automatically struck out on the date of non-compliance with the order. The Employment Judge did not err in concluding that such steps were disproportionate to enforce an order requiring disclosure of the address of a potential witness. In any event the imposition of an unless order on 30 December 2008 for compliance by 2 January 2009 was unreasonable. The order did not and could not have been expected to come to the attention of the Respondent until after the time for compliance had passed.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0062 – 09 – 2004

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.420249