Category: Employment

Frudd and Another v The Partington Group Ltd: EAT 11 Feb 2019

National Minimum Wage
During the open season of the caravan park the Claimants (who were a warden/receptionist team) were on call from evening to morning on either two or three nights each week. The Employment Judge found that during the evening until 10.00pm, when they were on call but not paid, they were working on time work for the purposes of the National Minimum Wage legislation; and overnight from 10pm to 7am (when they were paid for call-outs) they were not working but merely available for work unless they were called out. He did not expressly address the period from 7am until 8am when once again the Claimants were on call but not paid. Some reasoning was required to deal with this period. Royal Mencap Society v Tomlinson-Blake [2018] IRLR 932 considered.
Otherwise the appeal was dismissed – the Employment Judge’s reasons were sufficient to deal with the on-call period during the close season when the caravan park was shut overnight.

Citations:

[2019] UKEAT 0240 – 18 – 1102

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.637641

Mbuisa v Cygnet Healthcare Ltd: EAT 7 Mar 2019

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Striking-out/dismissal
The Claimant, acting in person, pursued a number of claims before the Employment Tribunal (‘the ET’) arising out of his employment with the Respondent and what he claimed was his constructive dismissal. He did not have sufficient continuous service to pursue a claim of unfair dismissal under section 98 Employment Rights Act (‘ERA’) but claimed he had been automatically unfairly (constructively) dismissed for a reason contrary to section 100 ERA. After attempts to clarify the Claimant’s claims at two Preliminary Hearings, the ET indicated it was considering whether the section 100 constructive dismissal claim should be struck out. After receiving further written representations from the Claimant, the ET went on to strike out this claim, concluding that – on the Claimant’s own case – he was not suggesting the matters that had caused him to resign from his employment (assaults, a threatened assault and being required to carry out lifting work when he was not fit to do so) had occurred by reason of any actions he had taken for section 100 purposes.
The Claimant appealed. The Respondent did not contest the appeal.
Held: allowing the appeal
The ET erred in striking out this claim as it had assumed a case for the Claimant that did not fully engage with what he was trying to say. While the immediate reason/s why he left his employment – the assaults, threatened assault and requirement to do lifting work – might not have occurred directly because of anything he had said or done relevant to section 100, the Claimant was saying that the Respondent had allowed circumstances to exist such that these things could happened because of his section 100 concerns. The question for the ET was whether there was no reasonable prospect of the Claimant being able to show that his raising of matters falling under section 100 was the reason or principal reason for why the Respondent allowed circumstances to arise such that he could be assaulted, threatened with assault or required to do lifting work. Appreciating the challenges faced by the ET in seeking to case manage claims that were poorly pleaded, striking out the claim had been a draconian step (depriving the Claimant of the right to have his case determined on the merits) that was premised on a misunderstanding of the case. The decision could not stand and would duly be set aside. The appropriate course to take in this case was to record how the case was in fact being put, ensure that the original pleading was formally amended and make any appropriate deposit order if it was considered that the case had little reasonable prospect of success.

Citations:

[2019] UKEAT 0119 – 18 – 0703

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.637646

Pora v Cape Industrial Services Ltd: EAT 19 Feb 2019

Extension of Time : Reasonably Practicable
The Employment Judge did not err in holding that it was reasonably practicable for the Claimant to present his claim for unfair dismissal in time when the date for presentation was missed due to the fault of his solicitor. A questionable observation that the Claimant could have sought advice elsewhere when he had been told his claim was being dealt with did not affect the basis of the decision of the Employment Judge.

Citations:

[2019] UKEAT 0253 – 18 – 1902

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.637643

Base Childrenswear Ltd v Otshudi: EAT 28 Feb 2019

RACE DISCRIMINATION – Injury to feelings
RACE DISCRIMINATION – Other losses
Race discrimination – injury to feelings and other (non-pecuniary) losses
The Claimant had pursued ET proceedings, complaining of various acts of harassment because of race in respect of six incidents during her employment and from the fact and manner of her dismissal. Finding that the claim in respect of matters arising during the course of the Claimant’s employment had been brought out of time, the ET upheld the Claimant’s complaint of racial harassment in respect of her dismissal. At the subsequent Remedies Hearing, the ET found that the Claimant’s injury to feelings fell to be considered within the middle of the middle Vento band and made an award of pounds 16,000 under this head. It separately considered her claim for aggravated damages, finding that the Respondent’s failure to respond to the Claimant’s grievance/appeal, its subsequent conduct of the ET litigation (its initial maintenance of the lie that she had been dismissed because of redundancy; its failure to respond to disclosure requests; its late alteration of its case to allege dismissal because of suspected theft) and its failure to apologise, had aggravated her injury to feelings, warranting an award of pounds 5,000 under this head. Having found that the Claimant had suffered medical depression for three months, the ET also made an award for personal injury in the sum of pounds 3,000. Standing back to consider the overall award made for non-pecuniary damages, the ET was satisfied that this was an appropriate sum. It then went on to make an uplift of 25% in respect of the Respondent’s breach of the ACAS Code given its failure to respond to the Claimant’s grievance/appeal.
The Respondent appealed, contending the awards made were manifestly excessive, the personal injury award failed to take into account the Claimant’s other complaints of discrimination (for which the Respondent had not been found liable) and the ET had double-counted the factors taken into account and/or had taken into account irrelevant factors.
Held: allowing the appeal in part
Injury to feelings
The fact that the ET’s finding of unlawful discrimination related to an isolated event – the Claimant’s dismissal – did not mean it was required to assess the award for injury to feelings as falling within the lowest Vento bracket: the question was what effect had the discriminatory act had on the Claimant? On the ET’s findings of fact in this case, it had permissibly concluded that this was a serious matter (something acknowledged by the Respondent) that gave rise to an injury to feelings award falling within the middle of the middle Vento bracket. Moreover, in reaching that decision, the ET had been careful not to double-count matters that it subsequently considered relevant to the question of aggravated damages, personal injury or any ACAS uplift. It had, further, not taken into account irrelevant factors when it referred to the Claimant’s grievance, her notification to ACAS or the pursuit of her ET proceedings; these were potentially relevant matters to which the ET was entitled to refer when testing whether the Claimant had genuinely been aggrieved by the Respondent’s discriminatory conduct. There was, therefore, no proper basis on which the EAT could interfere with the award made.
Aggravated damages
As for the aggravated damages award, other than a question as to whether this double-counted the Respondent’s failure to respond to the grievance/appeal (given the ET’s subsequent award of a 25% ACAS uplift), the ET’s reasoning made clear that it had been careful to have regard only to matters occurring after the dismissal, which had not been taken into account in assessing the initial injury to feelings suffered by the Claimant or her personal injury.
Personal injury
Similarly, when considering the claim in respect of personal injury, the ET had been astute not to allow double-recovery for factors already taken into account under other heads. As for the evidence supporting its award in this regard, the ET had noted that there was no basis for thinking that the other matters of which the Claimant had complained (for which the Respondent had not been held liable) had caused her to suffer depression; in the circumstances it had not erred in law in failing to apportion some element of the three-month period of medical depression to some other, earlier cause.
Totality
Standing back and considering the totality of the sums awarded, given the particular facts of this case (where the Claimant had, out of the blue, been summarily dismissed from a job in a career in which she had invested much in terms of time and money, for which she had worked hard and which she reasonably considered to be a long-term employment; where the reason for the dismissal had been an obvious lie; where the Claimant had faced managerial intimidation when she sought to contest the reason given for her dismissal), it could not be said that the award made was manifestly excessive such as to allow the EAT to interfere.
Double-counting
The only point on which a question of double-counting arose related to the regard given to the Respondent’s failure to respond to the Claimant’s grievance/appeal. Having already considered this relevant to the award for aggravated damages, the ET subsequently returned to the point when deciding whether it was appropriate to make an uplift of 25% for the Respondent’s breach of the ACAS Code. Although the Respondent had not appealed against the ACAS uplift, it had questioned the aggravated damages award in this respect. Given that the ET decided to make an ACAS uplift in respect of the grievance/appeal, the question whether this gave rise to double-recovery in relation to the aggravated damages award was a relevant matter that ought properly to have been considered by the ET. As the ET had failed to have regard to this issue, the appeal would be allowed to this limited extent.
The parties having consented to the EAT itself determining the question thus identified, further submissions were heard as to whether the ET’s award for aggravated damages should be reduced. Although, as the Claimant contended, it might be considered that the other matters taken into account under this head justified the sum awarded, it was apparent that the ET had also had regard to the failure to respond to the grievance/appeal and, as such, it was appropriate to reduce the award in this respect to avoid double-counting. Of the various factors that had led to the aggravated damages award, however, this was a relatively minor matter and the award would be reduced only by the sum of pounds 1,000.

Citations:

[2019] UKEAT 0267 – 18 – 2802

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination, Damages

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.637640

Simpson v Air Business Ltd: EAT 9 Apr 2019

Victimisation Discrimination – Protected Disclosure – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Striking-out/dismissal
There is an issue between the parties as to the cause of detriments, the subject of the alleged victimisation contrary to the Equality Act 2010. The Claimant alleges that they were because of an admitted protected act, the bringing of a grievance alleging sex discrimination, the Respondent alleges that they had a multiplicity of causes. The Employment Judge erred in deciding that the claim had little prospect of success because ‘it was difficult to see . . that the reason for those things happening was because of the protected act itself rather than a continuation of an ongoing state of affairs’. That observation failed to appreciate the case advanced by the Claimant. The Claimant asserted that the detriments were actions taken by HR in relation to her work arrangements and dismissal. Previous allegations had been of actions of others, her co-workers about acts of a different nature, their personal conduct towards the Claimant. The Employment Judge erred in failing to appreciate the factual dispute about the most important issue to be determined: the cause of the detriments. This can only be determined on findings of fact after trial of the evidence. This and other errors led to the appeal being allowed. The deposit order was set aside.

Citations:

[2019] UKEAT 0009 – 19 – 0904

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.637648

Ringway Infrastructure Services Ltd v Conlon: EAT 15 Feb 2019

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application/claim
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Striking-out/dismissal
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Postponement or stay
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity
The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the Respondent employer’s appeal against a decision of the Employment Tribunal made on paper without a hearing. The effect of the order was to postpone the hearing of the Claimant employee’s application for reconsideration of an Order striking out his claim for breach of an Unless Order, indefinitely, at the option of the Claimant employee. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding, in short, that the Order had been made in a way that was materially irregular, and that it was irrational.
The Claimant employee attended for part of the hearing of the appeal. He contended that the language of the interpreter who had been provided (Irish Gaelic) was not his first language, and that his first language was Breton Gaelic. The Employment Appeal Tribunal heard evidence from him. It rejected his claims about his first language, and that he needed an interpreter in order to take part in the hearing of the appeal. It refused his application for an adjournment for a Breton Gaelic interpreter to be provided. He then absented himself from the hearing, and the Employment Appeal Tribunal decided the appeal without the benefit of his oral submissions.

Citations:

[2019] UKEAT 0256 – 18 – 1502

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.637644

Akhigbe v Berkeley Homes (Urban Renaissance) Ltd: EAT 26 Feb 2019

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Striking-out/dismissal
VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Whistleblowing
An employment judge had not erred in law by deciding that the appellant’s allegation that the respondent employer had subjected the appellant to a detriment by persistently refusing to disclose documents pursuant to a ‘subject access request’ under the then Data Protection Act 1998 had no reasonable prospect of success and should be struck out without a trial.

Citations:

[2019] UKEAT 0005 – 18 – 2602

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.637639

Arthur v Ghana International Bank Plc: EAT 21 Jan 2019

CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Wrongful dismissal
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of Dismissal
The Employment Tribunal did not err in law in its determination of the Claimant’s complaints of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal.

Citations:

[2019] UKEAT 0203 – 18 – 2101

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.637636

Clarke v Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board: EAT 23 Jan 2019

Practice and Procedure – The Tribunal had lost its notes of an earlier preliminary hearing at which an application to adduce expert medical evidence was refused. The Claimant applied for reconsideration. At a directions hearing, the Tribunal directed the parties to disclose their contemporaneous notes of the earlier hearing. The Tribunal also stated that, ‘If on consideration of those notes it is apparent that my recollection of the Claimant’s own evidence, her cross-examination and the respondent’s witnesses’ answers is materially incorrect then I would consider that to amount to a material fact warranting further consideration of this issue.’ The Claimant was concerned that the Tribunal would use the parties’ notes to ‘backfill’ its own conclusions. The Claimant applied to the Tribunal to provide, from memory, a summary of its material recollection of the earlier hearing before seeing the parties’ notes of evidence (‘the application’). The Tribunal refused the application, noting that the parties had consented to the provision of their notes and that there had not been any material change in circumstances such as to warrant varying its order. The Claimant appealed against the Tribunal’s decision to refuse the application on the grounds that there had been a material change in circumstances – namely the Tribunal’s proposed course of action in relation to the notes – and that the proposed course was unfair and would be perceived as such.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal’s proposed course of action did not amount to a material change in circumstances. The parties were aware at the time of the order to produce their notes that the Tribunal’s notes were unavailable and that the Judge would be reading the parties’ notes. The possibility that the Judge would, having seen those notes, compare them against his own recollection was evident from the outset. The Tribunal’s proposal was not unfair. In the unusual circumstances of this case, whereby the Tribunal had lost its notes, there was nothing to suggest that by referring to the parties’ notes, the Tribunal would be doing anything other than refreshing its memory. It is unlikely that the Tribunal intended to rely upon the notes in order to ‘backfill’ its conclusions as alleged, or to come up with material not recorded elsewhere, and there was nothing to suggest that that was its intention. Furthermore, if the Tribunal did seek to rely on matters wholly unsupported by any evidence, then that would probably give rise to a separate ground of appeal in any event.

Citations:

[2019] UKEAT 0185 – 18 – 2301

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.637637

Beacons of Light Ltd v Belton: EAT 15 May 2009

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL: Reasonableness of dismissal
The issue for the Employment Tribunal was whether the Respondent was reasonably entitled on the basis of the material before it to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Claimant had smacked a child in its care. Despite directing itself to the contrary, that it was not substituting its own views for those of the Respondent, that is precisely what the Employment Tribunal did. Furthermore the decision by the Employment Tribunal that the Respondent was unreasonable to have accepted the evidence of a witness it found to be honest and credible although contradicted by other evidence, was perverse.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0359 – 08 – 1505

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.346164

Averns v Stagecoach In Warwickshire: EAT 16 Jul 2008

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS
Extension of time: reasonably practicable
Extension of time: just and equitable

The Employment Tribunal found that claims for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination, brought by the estate of a deceased employee, were out of time. They held that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claims in time, but that the wife of the claimant had not acted reasonably and promptly thereafter. Accordingly they held that the claim had not been put in within a reasonable period thereafter with respect to the unfair dismissal claim; and that it was not just and equitable to extend the time with respect to the disability discrimination claim.
The EAT held that in concluding that the wife had not acted promptly and reasonably, the Employment Tribunal had not given proper consideration to their important finding that she was ignorant that the estate could pursue these rights after her husband’s death. The appeals were upheld and the case remitted to a fresh tribunal.

Judges:

Elias P J

Citations:

[2008] UKEAT 0065 – 08 – 1607

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.270858

Bezant v Tertiary Enterprises Ltd: EAT 19 Jul 2004

EAT Practice and Procedure – Estoppel or Abuse of Process.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Burton

Citations:

[2004] UKEAT 0348 – 04 – 1907, UKEATPA/0348/04

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Bezant and Another v Tertiary Enterprises Ltd EAT 8-Jul-2002
. .
See Also – Bezant and Another v Tertiary Enterprises Ltd EAT 10-Apr-2003
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Other . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.257152

Weissenfels v Parliament: ECFI 25 Jan 2006

ECJ (Staff Regulations) French Text Fonctionnaires – Remuneration – Allocation pour enfant a charge – Allocation double pour enfant atteint d’un handicap – Article 67, paragraphe 2, du statut – Deduction du montant d’une allocation de meme nature.

Citations:

T-33/04, [2006] EUECJ T-33/04

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.238146

Chandera v Royal Mail Group: EAT 5 Jan 2006

EAT Practice and Procedure – Case Management. Postponement or Stay/Case Management
Change of representative – late request Further and Better Particulars – application for postponement of hearing dates. Refused by Chairman. No error of law.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Peter Clark

Citations:

UKEAT/0709/05, [2006] UKEAT 0709 – 05 – 0501

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.237655

NSM Music Ltd v J H Leefe: EAT 14 Dec 2005

EAT Practice and Procedure: Appearance/Response, Review and Appellate Jurisdiction/Burns-Barke
When a Respondent has been debarred from taking part in proceedings under ET Rule 9, he may request Reasons from the ET for the purpose of an application for review, but not for any other purpose (and, consequently, at least pending any legislative change to Rule 9, a request for such Reasons intended solely for the purpose of considering an appeal can only be achieved by asking the EAT to exercise its powers under Rule 30(3)(b)). Because of the draconian effect of a Rule 9 order, a Tribunal must be aware of disproportionate consequences, for example the effect on a Respondent of being debarred from resisting quantum as well as liability. In any event, review opportunities at the EAT (by reference to Pendragon where appropriate) should be taken up. Doubted whether there is power to order or lay down a condition that an undisputed sum be paid over by an appellant.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (President)

Citations:

UKEAT/0663/05, [2005] UKEAT 0663 – 05 – 1412, [2006] ICR 450

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Statutes:

Employment Tribunal’s (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Consignia Plc v Russell Sealy CA 19-Jun-2002
The complainant was a post office employee. He brought a claim for unfair dismissal, but he posted it at a time when in the normal course of delivery, it would not arrive. He claimed to be unaware of the normal times for delivery.
Held: It was . .
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 . .
Cited – Pendragon Plc T/A CD Bramall Bradford v Copus EAT 11-Jul-2005
EAT Practice and Procedure
Response served by Respondent out of time and judgment in default entered. Chairman found that pursuant to Rule 33 of the new Rules he had no discretion to review the default . .
Cited – Bolch v Chipman EAT 19-May-2003
EAT The EAT considered the consequences, of a decision to strike out a Notice of Appearance under Rule 15(2)(d).
Held: The EAT will require an employment tribunal, among other things, to consider the . .
Cited – Atos Origin IT Services UK Ltd v Haddock EAT 21-Jul-2004
EAT Practice and Procedure – Appellate jurisdiction/Reasons/Burns-Barke.- 8(R): Respondent who has not entered Notice of Appearance in Employment Tribunal held entitled to appeal on remedy.
12(J): Applicant . .

Cited by:

See Also – NSM Music Ltd v Leefe EAT 20-Jun-2006
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Polkey deduction
Appeal on basis that Chairman failed to consider whether a Polkey deduction was appropriate in a failure to consult redundancy unfair dismissal. Respondent had been . .
Cited – Terry Ballard and Co (A Firm) v Stonestreet EAT 11-Jan-2007
EAT Practice and Procedure – Review; Insolvency
A Respondent debarred under rule 4(1) and 9 may apply for a review and, if granted, appear as a full party. Otherwise there is no purpose in allowing it to . .
Cited – American E-Z Self Storage Ltd v Prince EAT 2-May-2008
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: – Appearance/response – Costs – Appellant failed to put in a response. Default judgment entered. Appellant applied for review. Respondent had been employed for less than 12 months but . .
Cited – D and H Travel Ltd, Henderson v Foster EAT 24-Jul-2006
EAT The employee made a claim for sexual harassment against her employer and an individual who effectively ran the company. No response was entered and the Chairman entered a default judgment on liability only. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.237658

Hachette Filipacchi UK Ltd v G Johnson: EAT 14 Dec 2005

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reasonableness of dismissal. Unfair Dismissal and Redundancy
In paragraph 22 of its Reasons the Tribunal appears to have decided that the employer was required to give the employee ‘first refusal’ to return to a particular job when she was redundant. If so, no adequate process of reasoning as to how the ‘reasonable responses’ test applied and why this result was reached.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Richardson

Citations:

UKEAT/0452/05, [2005] UKEAT 0452 – 05 – 1412

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – J Sainsbury Ltd v Hitt; Orse Sainsburys Supermarkets Limited v Hitt CA 18-Oct-2002
Reasobaleness of Investigation Judged Objectively
The employer appealed against a decision that it had unfairly dismissed the respondent. The majority of the Employment Tribunal had decided that the employers had not carried out a reasonable investigation into the employee’s alleged misconduct . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.237657

J Shepherd and others v North Yorkshire County Council: EAT 7 Dec 2005

EAT Sex Discrimination – Victimisation – The Claimants’ claim that the Respondent aided, abetted, counselled and procured trade unions to commit breaches of section 12 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 is unsustainable, both in the form originally pleaded and in the proposed re-formulation put before the Appeal Tribunal. Accordingly, albeit for reasons different to those of the Tribunal, the appeal is dismissed.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Richardson

Citations:

UKEAT/0526/05, [2005] UKEAT 0526 – 05 – 2112

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.237661

D Holc-Gale v Makers UK Ltd: EAT 30 Nov 2005

EAT Practice and Procedure – 2002 Act and pre-action requirements. Regulation 14 2004 Regulations; excluding discrimination Questionnaires from definition of statutory grievance. When failure to comply with SGP may be raised. Whether SGP requirement offends European Law.
The Regulations cannot be circumvented by contending that the grievance identified in the preamble to the questions can be treated as not being part of the questionnaire itself.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Peter Clark

Citations:

UKEAT/0625/05, [2005] UKEAT 0625 – 05 – 2112, (2006) IRLR 178

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Statutes:

Equal Pay Act 1970, Employment Act 2002 32, Employment Tribunals (Constitution etc) Regulations 2004

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Dunn v Chief Constable of PSNI NIIT 11-Dec-2007
NIIT The decision of the tribunal is that:-
(1) The claimant’s claims of discrimination on the grounds of disability and breach of contract are dismissed, following withdrawal made orally to the tribunal.
Cited – Swindell v Lisburn Golf Club NIIT 30-May-2008
NIIT The decision of the tribunal is that the claimant’s letter to the respondent dated 4/10 January 2008 and headed Ref: My Dismissal October 2007 sets out in writing the claimant’s grievance and the basis for . .
Cited – Cannop and others v Brown and others SCS 11-Jun-2008
. .
Cited – Simpson v Doherty FENI 9-Jul-2008
. .
Cited – European Credit Management Ltd v Hosso EAT 12-Aug-2008
EAT Practice and Procedure
The issue was whether the modified grievance procedure had been satisfied in relation to a claim for larger payments when no specific mention of such payment had been made in any . .
Cited – Alitalia Airport Spa v Akrif and others EAT 17-Mar-2008
EAT Statutory Discipline and Grievance Procedures – Whether infringed
Did the Employment Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear claims from certain claimants alleging breach of the Employment Equality (Age) . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.237663

Sedef (External Relations): ECJ 10 Jan 2006

ECJ EEC-Turkey Association – Freedom of movement for workers – Article 6 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council – Right to the extension of a residence permit – Conditions – Turkish national who was employed in the maritime shipping industry of a Member State for 15 years – Same employer for more than one year without interruption, but not up to the end of a period of three years – Periods of employment interrupted 17 times on account of the nature of the occupation

Citations:

[2006] ECR I-157, C-230/03, [2006] EUECJ C-230/03

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.237650

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 economic entity arising out of work done under contract where the contract could be terminated at will or others brought in to do the work in substitution?
Could there be a transfer of labour where equipment was needed to perform the tasks but that equipment was hired by the ‘transferor’?
Were the reasons given adequate in that the Employment Tribunal decided that the undertaking was labour intensive yet that most of the workforce continued to work for the transferor?

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Langstaff

Citations:

UKEAT/0218/05, [2005] UKEAT 0218 – 05 – 0211, [2006] IRLR 258

Links:

Bailii, EAT, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Balfour Beatty Power Networks Ltd and Another v Wilcox and others CA 20-Jul-2006
Rule 30(6) of the 2004 Rules, which requires sufficient reasons, is intended to be a guide and not a straitjacket so that if it can be reasonably spelled out from a determination that what the rule requires has been provided by the Tribunal, then no . .
Cited – Greenwood v NWF Retail Ltd EAT 18-Feb-2011
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 . .
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.

Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.237427

Craddock v Cornwall County Council and others: EAT 19 Dec 2005

EAT Sexual Discrimination: Direct and Unfair Dismissal: Reason for Dismissal
Justification of discrimination condition.
Constructive Dismissal: Ambit of constructive dismissal amounting to a breach of mutual trust and confidence.

Judges:

Pugsley J

Citations:

0367/05, [2005] UKEAT 0367 – 05 – 1912

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.236847

The Home Office v A Bailey and others: EAT 2 Nov 2005

EAT Practice and Procedure: Permission to Appeal Further and Costs
Test for granting/refusing permission to appeal. Whether power to make partial order for costs.

Judges:

Peter Clark J

Citations:

[2005] UKEAT 0706 – 04 – 0211

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Home Office v Bailey and others CA 22-Mar-2005
Prison officers claimed awards for sex discrimination. The employer replied that the pools of comparators each contained members of either sex. The appellants sought to establish that any less favourable treatment of them in comparison with the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.236842

Benjamin v Interlacing Ribbon Ltd: EAT 1 Nov 2005

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Constructive dismissal.
Contract of Employment and Unfair Dismissal
The Tribunal erred in law in its approach to the question whether Mrs Benjamin’s contract of employment contained a term entitling her to be paid while sick.
The Tribunal did not otherwise err in law in its approach to the issue of constructive dismissal.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Richardson

Citations:

UKEAT/0420/05, [2005] UKEAT 0363 – 05 – 0111, UKEAT/0363/05

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.236837

Commotion Ltd v Rutty: EAT 13 Oct 2005

EAT Contract of Employment -and- Unfair Dismissal
This appeal gave rise to potentially important points on the flexible working sections in Part 8A of ERA 1996 and on the commencement and effects of the Dispute Resolution Regulations. The employee informally sought flexible working in order to care for her grandchildren; this was refused. She then made a formal application under s.80 F of ERA which was also refused. She then resigned and claimed constructive dismissal. S.32 of EA came into effect a few days before the result of the appeal was notified; she did not go separately through the grievance procedure before presenting her claim for unfair dismissal and discrimination and under the flexible working procedures. The Tribunal found that the employer’s grounds of refusal (s.50 G of the ERA) were not made out, that the employee had been constructively dismissed. Her presentation of the formal application of F.W was on the fault also the making of a grievance. Appeal dismissed. We held, inter alia, (1) that the Tribunal were entitled to examine and decide upon the factual correctness of the asserted ground for refusing the flexible working request, although not its fairness and reasonableness and (2) that it was not, in law, necessary for the employee to go through two sets of procedures in order to comply with the requirements of s32 and Schedule 2 of Employment Act and that it was open to the Tribunal to find that her flexible working application was also the presentation of a grievance.

Judges:

His Honour Judge J Burke QC

Citations:

[2005] UKEAT 0418 – 05 – 1310, UKEAT/0418/05

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.236833

Jackson v Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council: EAT 28 Sep 2005

EAT Practice and Procedure: Appellate Jurisdiction
On the Appellant’s presentation of a Notice of Appeal 327 days out of time, albeit a letter from solicitors was faxed two hours out of time while Appellant was in hospital, discretion declined following Woodward v Abbey National [2005] ICR 1750 and Schultz v Esso Petroleum Ltd [1999] IRLR 488 CA.

Judges:

McMullen QC HHJ

Citations:

[2005] UKEAT 0283 – 05 – 2809

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.236832

Hardy and Hansons Plc v Lax: EAT 28 Nov 2005

EAT Sex Discrimination: Injury to Feelings and Other Losses
In the light of the finding at the liability hearing, upheld by the CA, that the Claimant should have been offered the opportunity to take the new post (after redundancy in respect of her old post during her maternity leave) on a job-share basis, the ET did not err in not discounting compensation on a loss of a chance basis. ET however erred in awarding andpound;14,000 for injury to feelings, which took into account irrelevant factors and was excessive (some attention being paid to the EOR guide of similar cases which, if adopted with caution, is a useful document) and was (conservatively, because of the exercise of substitution which was adopted at the invitation of the parties instead of remission) substituted by andpound;10,000.

Judges:

Burton P J

Citations:

UKEAT/0700/04, [2005] UKEAT 0700 – 04 – 2811

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Citing:

See Also – Hardys and Hansons Plc v Lax CA 7-Jul-2005
The issue of justification of discrimination is rarely a simple matter. No margin of appreciation was to be allowed to an employer. It is for the tribunal to make its own judgment as to whether the practice complained of by the employee was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Costs

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.236841

Assoukou v Select Services Partners Ltd and others: EAT 30 Nov 2005

EAT Sex Discrimination – Injury to feelings. Appeal against making of no award by Employment Tribunal of compensation for injury to feelings on claim for sex discrimination, where, on the Employment Tribunal’s findings, the Claimant in any event was not lawfully entitled to work: no ground to disturb finding of Employment Tribunal.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (President)

Citations:

UKEAT/0585/05, [2005] UKEAT 0585 – 05 – 3011

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.236836

Sinclair Roche and Temperley (A Firm ) v Heard, Fellows: EAT 21 Nov 2005

EAT Practice and Procedure: Disclosure, Costs and Disposal of Appeal
Appeal against interlocutory orders by ET Chairman debarring reliance on some disclosed documents and ordering costs against the Appellant: and restoration of earlier adjourned application for Review of the decision by the EAT, when allowing the original appeal, to remit the appeal to the same Tribunal. Appeal allowed in respect of debarring order and costs: order was flawed as being in substitution for an earlier order which should plainly not have been granted and as made without consideration of the correct legal approach to prejudice caused by late disclosure, in terms of effect on a fair trial and prejudice caused by debarring the evidence: costs order made in respect of the hearing could not be justified on grounds of unreasonable conduct by the Appellant, but was due to the need to revoke the earlier inappropriate order.
On the restored application for Review, order reviewed so as to remit the appeal to a freshly-constituted Tribunal, on the grounds that the Sinclair Roche requirements for the exceptional step of remitting to the same Tribunal were not, in the light of subsequent events, now satisfied.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (President)

Citations:

UKEAT/0637/05, [2005] UKEAT 0637 – 05 – 2111

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Sinclair Roche and Temperley and others v Heard and Another EAT 22-Jul-2004
EAT Sex discrimination claim by former partners against the partnership and individual partners: direct discrimination (in both cases) and indirect discrimination (in one) found by ET.
(i) ET must, if . .
See Also – Sinclair Roche and Temperley (A Firm) v Heard, Fellows EAT 12-Apr-2005
EAT Practice and Procedure
Employment Tribunal Chairman, after a Case Management and Directions Hearing to delineate issues and set timetable for May hearing, delayed for three months before delivering . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.236495

Miller v 5M (UK) Limited: EAT 1 Dec 2005

EAT The Applicant commenced two actions which claimed unpaid wages for two different periods of time. The issue was whether issue estoppel applied and there was an argument concerning perversity.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Pugsley

Citations:

UKEAT/0359/05, [2005] UKEAT 0359 – 05 – 0112

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Lindsey Beveridge v KLM UK Ltd EAT 16-Feb-2000
EAT The claimant appealed refusal of her claim for unlawful deduction. She had been off sick long term. Her doctor certified her fit to return, and she asked to return, but her employer waited a further six weeks . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.236488

T Gover and others v Propertycare Ltd: EAT 22 Nov 2005

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Polkey deduction.
The ET had found basic failings in the way the employers had sought to change employment contracts. This led to constructive dismissals and a finding of unfair dismissal by the Tribunal. But it was held that even if proper consultation had occurred, the employees would not have accepted the fundamental changes which the employers were seeking to introduce into their contracts, and that all they had lost was the period during which consultation would have occurred, which the Tribunal found to be was 4 months. The Tribunal accordingly limited the compensatory award to that period.
Held: The employment tribunal was justifiably drawing on its own industrial experience not in order to speculate, but rather to provide a ‘framework which is a working hypothesis about what would have occurred had the Respondent behaved differently and fairly’.

Judges:

His Honour Judge McMullen QC

Citations:

UKEAT/0458/05, [2005] UKEAT 0458 – 05 – 2211

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Propertycare Ltd v T Gower and others EAT 14-Nov-2003
EAT Contract of Employment – Definition of employee . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Gover and others v Propertycare Ltd CA 28-Mar-2006
The claimants appealed dismissal of their claims for unfair dismissal, on the basis that they had been substantially dismissed as sales agents after rejecting conditions imposed unilaterally by their employers. Their damages had been limited to the . .
Cited – Alexander and Hatherley v Bridgen Enterprises Ltd EAT 12-Apr-2006
The company made selections for redundancy, but failed to give the appellants information about how the scoring system had resulted in the figures allocated. The calculations left their representative unable to challenge them on appeal. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.236494

Dellas, Confederation generale du travail, Federation nationale des syndicats des services de sante et des services sociaux CFDT, etc v Ministre des Affaires sociales, du Travail et de la Solidarite: ECJ 1 Dec 2005

ECJ Social policy – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Directive 93/104/CE – Concept of -working time – Scope – National legislation providing for a ceiling more favourable to workers, in particular as regards maximum weekly working time – Determination of working time in certain social establishments – On-call duty where the worker is required to be present at the workplace – Periods of inactivity on the part of the worker in the context of such duty – National system of calculation of hours of presence differentiated according to the intensity of the activity.

Citations:

C-14/04, [2005] EUECJ C-14/04, [2006] IRLR 225, [2005] ECR I-10253, [2006] CEC 328, [2006] 2 CMLR 2

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 93/104/CE

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – British Airways Plc v Williams and Others CA 3-Apr-2009
The company appealed against an adverse finding on its holiday pay payments to its pilots, saying that the pay was subject to the 2004 Regulations alone. The Directive suggested that holiday pay should be at normal average rates of pay, but the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235848

Bvunzai v Glasgow City Council: SCS 1 Dec 2005

Judges:

Lord Hamilton And Lord Kingarth And Lord Reed

Citations:

[2005] ScotCS CSIH – 85

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Cited – Glasgow City Council v C Bvunzai EAT 18-Oct-2004
EAT Race Discrimination – Direct . .
Cited – Dr Anya v University of Oxford and Another CA 22-Mar-2001
Discrimination – History of interactions relevant
When a tribunal considered whether the motive for an act was discriminatory, it should look not just at the act, but should make allowance for earlier acts which might throw more light on the act in question. The Tribunal should assess the totality . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235839

Home Office v Saunders: EAT 7 Nov 2005

EAT Sex Discrimination
The Employment Tribunal was entitled to find that the hypothetical comparator for a female prison officer conducting a rub-down search of a male prisoner was a male prison officer conducting a rub-down search of a female prisoner despite the fact that a male prison officer was not permitted to carry out such a search.

Citations:

[2005] UKEAT 0260 – 05 – 0711

Links:

Bailii

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235820

Blackstone Franks Investment Management Ltd v Robertson: EAT 12 Nov 1996

Deductions from unpaid commissions are deductions from wages for Act.

Citations:

Times 12-Nov-1996

Statutes:

Wages Act 1986 7(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – Robertson v Blackstone Franks Investment Management Limited CA 7-Apr-1998
A self-employed worker was entitled to claim for commission payments due as wages due to a worker, but the employer was entitled to make allowance for advance payments he had made. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Robertson v Blackstone Franks Investment Management Limited CA 7-Apr-1998
A self-employed worker was entitled to claim for commission payments due as wages due to a worker, but the employer was entitled to make allowance for advance payments he had made. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.78439

Magagnin v Chief Constable of the West Yorkshire Police: EAT 9 Mar 2005

EAT Practice and Procedure – Costs.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Reid Qc

Citations:

[2005] UKEAT 0653 – 04 – 0903, UKEAT/0653/04

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire v Magagnin EAT 18-Aug-2003
EAT Practice and Procedure – Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Costs

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.224720

Edwards v Marconi Corporation Plc: EAT 2 Nov 2001

Ex Parte application to determine whether or not there is an issue which should go to a Full Hearing. Claimant appointed as Justice of the Peace but complaining that time-off not given.

Citations:

[2001] UKEAT 0749 – 01 – 0211

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Edwards v Marconi Corporation Plc EAT 18-Oct-2002
. .
See Also – Edwards v Marconi Corporation Plc EAT 27-Jan-2003
. .
See Also – Edwards v Marconi Corporation Plc EAT 29-Apr-2003
Exercise of an Employment Tribunal’s discretion in the award of costs. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.204459

Edwards v Marconi Corporation Plc: EAT 18 Oct 2002

Citations:

[2002] UKEAT 398 – 02 – 1810

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Edwards v Marconi Corporation Plc EAT 2-Nov-2001
Ex Parte application to determine whether or not there is an issue which should go to a Full Hearing. Claimant appointed as Justice of the Peace but complaining that time-off not given. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Edwards v Marconi Corporation Plc EAT 27-Jan-2003
. .
See Also – Edwards v Marconi Corporation Plc EAT 29-Apr-2003
Exercise of an Employment Tribunal’s discretion in the award of costs. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.203131

Bradley v Freeport Plc: EAT 29 Sep 2003

EAT Practice and Procedure – Application/Claim.

Judges:

The Honourable Lord Johnston

Citations:

[2003] EATS 0019 – 03 – 2909, [2003] UKEAT 0019 – 03 – 2909, EATS/0019/03

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

See Also – Bradley v Freeport Plc EAT 11-Mar-2004
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Exclusions including worker/jurisdiction. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.202327

D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth: EAT 2 Jul 1997

Citations:

[1997] UKEAT 1042 – 96 – 0207

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 6-Dec-1994
. .
See Also – D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 1-May-1995
. .
See Also – D’Souza v Lambeth Borough Council EAT 18-Oct-1995
The employment tribunal held that it had not been practicable for the council to reinstate Mr D’Souza. He had succeeded in a claim for unfair dismissal and sought reinstatement, but this had been refused.
Held: An award of damages was made for . .
See Also – D’Souza v Lambeth Borough Council CA 3-Mar-1996
The claimant challenged a decision that the council could properly refuse to re-instate him after a wrongful dismissal. . .

Cited by:

See Also – D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 9-Oct-1997
. .
See Also – D’Souza v Lambeth Borough Council CA 10-Dec-1997
. .
See Also – D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 14-Jan-1998
A re-instatement award after a finding of racial discrimination is in two stage process. The first part consisting of the order for re-instatement stays the balance of the award provisionally until the order for re-instatement has been complied with . .
See Also – D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 1-Jul-1998
. .
See Also – D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth and Another EAT 22-Jul-1998
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.207620

Attorney General v D’Souza: EAT 19 Jul 2004

EAT Application by the Attorney-General for a Restriction of Proceedings Order pursuant to section 33 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 granted. It is not open to the Employment Appeal Tribunal considering an application under section 33 to revisit the conclusions of the judges in the underlying proceedings upon which the application is based.

Citations:

[2004] UKEAT 0139 – 04 – 1907, UKEAT/0139/04

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Followed – Her Majesty’s Attorney General v Wheen EAT 18-Apr-2000
An order restricting the right of a person to make application to an employment tribunal without the consent of the EAT, was properly made where the behaviour of the respondent in the past had justified it, despite the fact that no proceedings had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.199852

Stagecoach In Fife v Higgins: EAT 30 Sep 2003

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Constructive dismissal.

Judges:

The Honourable Lord Johnston

Citations:

[2003] UKEAT 0037 – 03 – 3009, EATS/0037/03

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

See Also – Stagecoach In Fife v Peter Higgins EAT 21-Feb-2002
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Appeal Tribunal. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.202330

D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth: EAT 9 Oct 1997

Citations:

[1997] UKEAT 1206 – 95 – 0910

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 6-Dec-1994
. .
See Also – D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 1-May-1995
. .
See Also – D’Souza v Lambeth Borough Council EAT 18-Oct-1995
The employment tribunal held that it had not been practicable for the council to reinstate Mr D’Souza. He had succeeded in a claim for unfair dismissal and sought reinstatement, but this had been refused.
Held: An award of damages was made for . .
See Also – D’Souza v Lambeth Borough Council CA 3-Mar-1996
The claimant challenged a decision that the council could properly refuse to re-instate him after a wrongful dismissal. . .
See Also – D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 2-Jul-1997
. .

Cited by:

Cited – D’Souza v Lambeth Borough Council CA 10-Dec-1997
. .
Cited – D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 14-Jan-1998
A re-instatement award after a finding of racial discrimination is in two stage process. The first part consisting of the order for re-instatement stays the balance of the award provisionally until the order for re-instatement has been complied with . .
Cited – D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 1-Jul-1998
. .
Cited – D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth and Another EAT 22-Jul-1998
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.207764

Bezant and Another v Tertiary Enterprises Ltd: EAT 8 Jul 2002

Citations:

[2002] UKEAT 1308 – 01 – 0807

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Bezant and Another v Tertiary Enterprises Ltd EAT 10-Apr-2003
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Other . .
See Also – Bezant v Tertiary Enterprises Ltd EAT 19-Jul-2004
EAT Practice and Procedure – Estoppel or Abuse of Process. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.202962

D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth: EAT 1 May 1995

Citations:

[1995] UKEAT 266 – 92 – 0105

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 6-Dec-1994
. .

Cited by:

See Also – D’Souza v Lambeth Borough Council EAT 18-Oct-1995
The employment tribunal held that it had not been practicable for the council to reinstate Mr D’Souza. He had succeeded in a claim for unfair dismissal and sought reinstatement, but this had been refused.
Held: An award of damages was made for . .
See Also – D’Souza v Lambeth Borough Council CA 3-Mar-1996
The claimant challenged a decision that the council could properly refuse to re-instate him after a wrongful dismissal. . .
See Also – D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 2-Jul-1997
. .
See Also – D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 9-Oct-1997
. .
See Also – D’Souza v Lambeth Borough Council CA 10-Dec-1997
. .
See Also – D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 14-Jan-1998
A re-instatement award after a finding of racial discrimination is in two stage process. The first part consisting of the order for re-instatement stays the balance of the award provisionally until the order for re-instatement has been complied with . .
See Also – D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 1-Jul-1998
. .
See Also – D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth and Another EAT 22-Jul-1998
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.209084

Wall v The British Compressed Air Society: CA 10 Dec 2003

The applicant was employed as director-general, with his contract stating that his retirement age would be 70. Nobody else had a similar occupation within the organisation, and he said this therefore constituted his ‘normal age’ for retirement, entitling hiim to claim unfair dismissal.
Held: The fact that only one employee was in the applicant’s class, did not mean that there could not be a normal retirement age: ‘in cases where an employee has a contractual retiring age, there is no need for comparisons to be made with other employees holding the same position before a normal retiring age can be established’

Judges:

The Hon Mr Justice Evans-Lombe Lord Justice Scott Baker Lord Justice Simon Brown

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1762, Times 09-Dec-2003, Gazette 05-Feb-2004, [2004] IRLR 147, [2007] ICR 970, [2004] ICR 408, [2004] Pens LR 87

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 109(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Wall v British Compressed Air Society EAT 7-Feb-2003
‘To the question ‘was there a normal retiring age for an employee holding the position held by Mr Wall immediately before his dismissal?’ the answer, in our view, is ‘yes, the only employee holding that position was Mr Wall himself, and it was 70′.’ . .
Cited – Patel v Nagesan CA 1995
Mrs Nagesan’s contract specified no retirement age. She was dismissed on attaining 60. The employers disputed the tribunal’s jurisdiction, saying they had written to all employees, including Mrs Nagesan, purporting to introduce a new retiring age of . .
Wrongly decided – Age Concern Scotland v Hines EAT 1983
An employee in a unique position within a company could not have a normal retirement age. ‘For [Miss Hines] it was argued that she fell into a category of one, being the only counselling organiser employed by the appellants, and that there were . .
Cited – Waite v Government Communications Headquarters HL 21-Jul-1983
Colonel Waite had obtained employment with the civil service in 1967 under the Civil Service Code’s relevant terms and conditions which provided for a retirement age of 60. Although the employers could defer retirement under these terms and . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Wall v British Compressed Air Society EAT 7-Feb-2003
‘To the question ‘was there a normal retiring age for an employee holding the position held by Mr Wall immediately before his dismissal?’ the answer, in our view, is ‘yes, the only employee holding that position was Mr Wall himself, and it was 70′.’ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.188686

Bradley v Freeport Plc: EAT 11 Mar 2004

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Exclusions including worker/jurisdiction.

Judges:

The Honourable Lord Johnston

Citations:

[2004] UKEAT 0019 – 03 – 1103, EATS/0019/03

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

See Also – Bradley v Freeport Plc EAT 29-Sep-2003
EAT Practice and Procedure – Application/Claim. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.195920

Edwards v Marconi Corporation Plc: EAT 29 Apr 2003

Exercise of an Employment Tribunal’s discretion in the award of costs.

Judges:

His Honour Judge J MMmullen QC

Citations:

[2003] EAT 0397 – 02 – 2904, [2003] UKEAT 0397 – 02 – 2904, EAT/0397/02

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Edwards v Marconi Corporation Plc EAT 2-Nov-2001
Ex Parte application to determine whether or not there is an issue which should go to a Full Hearing. Claimant appointed as Justice of the Peace but complaining that time-off not given. . .
See Also – Edwards v Marconi Corporation Plc EAT 18-Oct-2002
. .
See Also – Edwards v Marconi Corporation Plc EAT 27-Jan-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Costs

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.191498

1 Pump Court Chambers v Horton: EAT 2 Dec 2003

The chambers appealed a finding of discrimination, saying that a pupil was not a member of the set so as to qualify under the Act.
Held: The barristers set or chambers was a trade organisation, but the position of a pupil barrister was not that of a member of that chambers so as to attract protection within the Act.
EAT Disability Discrimination – Disability.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (P)

Citations:

UKEAT/775/03, Times 14-Apr-2004, [2003] UKEAT 0775 – 03 – 0212

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995 13(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – General Medical Council v H Cox EAT 22-Mar-2002
Miss Cox claimed that the Council had not made a proper adjustment so as to allow her to work for them despite her disability. The Council asserted as a preliminary point that they were not a trade organisation within the sections, and so were not . .
Cited – Jones v Secretary of State for Social Services; Jones v Hudson HL 1972
Unsatisfactory decisions of the highest court could cause uncertainty because lower courts tend to distinguish them on inadequate grounds.
One possible source of law is ‘informed professional opinion’. The word ‘final’ can denote different . .
Cited – Tower Boot Company Limited v Jones CA 11-Dec-1996
An employer’s liability for racial abuse by its employees is wider than its liability under the rules of vicarious liability. The statute created new obligations. Sex and race discrimination legislation seeks to eradicate the ‘very great evil’ of . .
Cited – Goodwin v Patent Office EAT 3-Feb-1999
Tribunals looking at Disability Discrimination should check the four factors in the Act without losing the overall picture. Assistance was available from the WHO Classification of Diseases. Being able to carry out a task did not mean ability was not . .
Cited – Royal College of Nursing of the United Kingdom v Department of Health and Social Security HL 2-Jan-1981
The court was asked whether nurses could properly involve themselves in a pregnancy termination procedure not known when the Act was passed, and in particular, whether a pregnancy was ‘terminated by a medical practitioner’, when it was carried out . .
Cited – Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd HL 28-Oct-1999
Same Sex Paartner to Inherit as Family Member
The claimant had lived with the original tenant in a stable and long standing homosexual relationship at the deceased’s flat. After the tenant’s death he sought a statutory tenancy as a spouse of the deceased. The Act had been extended to include as . .
Cited – Relaxion Group plc v Rhys-Harper; D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth; Jones v 3M Healthcare Limited and three other actions HL 19-Jun-2003
The court considered whether discriminatory acts after the termination of employment were caught by the respective anti-discrimination Acts. The acts included a failure to give proper references. They pursued claims on the basis of victimisation . .
Cited – Aziz v Trinity Street Taxis Ltd CA 26-Feb-1988
An Asian member of the respondent association of taxi cab operators secretly recorded conversations with other members to gather evidence for a claim under the Act. He was expelled from the association for this conduct. He alleged race . .
Cited – General Medical Council v H Cox EAT 22-Mar-2002
Miss Cox claimed that the Council had not made a proper adjustment so as to allow her to work for them despite her disability. The Council asserted as a preliminary point that they were not a trade organisation within the sections, and so were not . .
Appealed to – Higham of 1 Pump Court Chambers v Horton CA 15-Jul-2004
The claimant said he had suffered disability discrimination at the hands of the defendant, a barristers set. He had been accepted as a pupil, but then applied for a deferral which was refused. It was agreed that the set of chambers was a trade . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Higham of 1 Pump Court Chambers v Horton CA 15-Jul-2004
The claimant said he had suffered disability discrimination at the hands of the defendant, a barristers set. He had been accepted as a pupil, but then applied for a deferral which was refused. It was agreed that the set of chambers was a trade . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Legal Professions, Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.194198

Copsey v WWB Devon Clays Ltd: EAT 26 Nov 2003

EAT Disability Discrimination – Disability

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Rimer

Citations:

UKEAT/438/03, [2004] UKEAT 0438 – 03 – 1302

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Copsey v WWB Devon Clays Ltd CA 25-Jul-2005
The claimant said that his employer had failed to respect his right to express his beliefs by obliging him, though a Christian, to work on Sundays.
Held: The appeal failed. ‘The Commission’s position on Article 9, as I understand it, is that, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.194454

Commission v Italy C-32/02: ECJ 16 Oct 2003

(Judgment) Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 98/59/EC – Term Employer – National law which excludes non-profit-making activities from the scope of the directive – Incomplete transposition

Citations:

[2003] EUECJ C-32/02, [2003] ECR I-12063

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.187161

Fisscher v Voorhuis Hengelo and Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds voor de Detailhandel: ECJ 28 Sep 1994

Europa The right to join an occupational pension scheme, the rules of which were not laid down directly by law but were the result of negotiation between both sides of the industry concerned and all that the public authorities did was, at the request of such employers’ and trade union organizations as were considered to be representative, to declare the scheme compulsory for the whole of the industry concerned, is covered by the concept of pay within the meaning of Article 119 of the Treaty with the result that it is subject to the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex laid down by that article. It follows that an occupational pension scheme which, by excluding married women from membership, operates discrimination directly based on sex, contravenes Article 119 of the Treaty.
The limitation of the effects in time of the judgment of 17 May 1990 in Case C-262/88 Barber concerns only those kinds of discrimination which employers and pension schemes could reasonably have considered to be permissible owing to the transitional derogations for which Community law provided and which were capable of being applied to occupational pensions. This does not cover discrimination in relation to membership of occupational pension schemes held to be unlawful under Article 119 of the Treaty in the judgment of 13 May 1986 in Case 170/84 Bilka which itself contained no temporal limitation of its effects. In the absence of such a limitation, the direct effect of Article 119 of the Treaty can be relied upon in order retroactively to claim equal treatment in relation to the right to join an occupational pension scheme and this may be done as from 8 April 1976, the date of the judgment in Case 43/75 Defrenne in which the Court held for the first time that Article 119 has direct effect. However, the fact that a worker can claim retroactively to join an occupational pension scheme does not allow the worker to avoid paying the contributions relating to the period of membership concerned. The national rules relating to time-limits for bringing actions under national law may be relied on against workers who assert their right to join an occupational pension scheme, provided that they are not less favourable for that type of action than for similar actions of a domestic nature and that they do not render the exercise of rights conferred by Community law impossible in practice.
Europa
Although not party to the employment relationship, the administrators of an occupational pension scheme are called upon to pay out benefits which constitute pay within the meaning of Article 119 and, like any employer, must therefore comply with that provision by doing all within their powers to ensure that the principle of equal treatment is observed in this respect and scheme members must be able to rely upon it as against them. The effectiveness of Article 119 would be considerably diminished and the legal protection required to achieve real equality would be impaired if an employee could rely on that provision only as against the employer and not against the administrators of the scheme who are expressly charged with performing the employer’ s obligations.
The Protocol on Article 119 of the Treaty, annexed to the Treaty on European Union, concerns all benefits paid by an occupational social security scheme but not the right to join such a scheme. The question of membership is thus governed by the judgment of 13 May 1986 in Case 170/84 Bilka, according to which an undertaking which, without objective justification unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex, accords different treatment to men and women by excluding a category of employees from a company pension scheme infringes Article 119 of the Treaty.

Citations:

C-128/93, [1994] ECR I-4583, [1994] EUECJ C-128/93, [1995] ICR 635

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Preston and Others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS and Others; Fletcher and Others v Midland Bank Plc HL 26-Feb-1998
‘Employment’ in context of a sex discrimination claim referred to a current employment contract even in context of there having been a series of repeated contracts of employment. The question was referred to the European Court of Justice. . .
Cited – Powerhouse Retail Ltd and others v Burroughs and others; Preston and others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and others (No 3) HL 8-Mar-2006
The appellants said they had been had been discriminated against on the grounds of their sex by the TUPE Regulations. Their discrimination cases had been dismissed as out of time.
Held: The employees’ appeals were dismissed: ‘A statute cannot . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.161099

Vroege v NCIV Instituut voor Volkshuisvesting B V: ECJ 28 Sep 1994

Europa The right to join an occupational pension scheme, the rules of which were not laid down directly by law but were the result of negotiation between both sides of the industry concerned and all that the public authorities did was, at the request of such employers’ and trade union organizations as were considered to be representative, to declare the scheme compulsory for the whole of the industry concerned, is covered by the concept of pay within the meaning of Article 119 of the Treaty with the result that it is subject to the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex laid down by that article. It follows that an occupational pension scheme which by excluding married women from membership operates discrimination directly based on sex contravenes Article 119 of the Treaty. Where the exclusion concerns part-time workers, that provision is contravened only if the exclusion affects a greater number of women than men unless the employer shows that it may be explained by objectively justified factors unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex.
The limitation of the effects in time of the judgment of 17 May 1990 in Case C-262/88 Barber concerns only those kinds of discrimination which employers and pension schemes could reasonably have considered to be permissible owing to the transitional derogations for which Community law provided and which were capable of being applied to occupational pensions. This does not cover discrimination in relation to membership of occupational pension schemes held to be unlawful under Article 119 of the Treaty in the judgment of 13 May 1986 in Case 170/84 Bilka which itself contained no temporal limitation of its effects. In the absence of such a limitation, whose later introduction is in any event excluded, the direct effect of Article 119 of the Treaty can be relied upon in order retroactively to claim equal treatment in relation to the right to join an occupational pension scheme and this may be done as from 8 April 1976, the date of the judgment in Case 43/75 Defrenne in which the Court held for the first time that Article 119 has direct effect.
The Protocol on Article 119 of the Treaty, annexed to the Treaty on European Union, concerns all benefits paid by an occupational social security scheme but not the right to join such a scheme. The question of membership is thus governed by the judgment of 13 May 1986 in Case 170/84 Bilka according to which an undertaking which, without objective justification unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex, accords different treatment to men and women by excluding a category of employees from a company pension scheme infringes Article 119 of the Treaty.

Citations:

C-57/93, [1994] ECR I-4541

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Powerhouse Retail Ltd and others v Burroughs and others; Preston and others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and others (No 3) HL 8-Mar-2006
The appellants said they had been had been discriminated against on the grounds of their sex by the TUPE Regulations. Their discrimination cases had been dismissed as out of time.
Held: The employees’ appeals were dismissed: ‘A statute cannot . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment, Benefits

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.161081

Arjomand-Sissan v East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust: EAT 17 Apr 2019

VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Protected disclosure
The Claimant was employed by the Respondent as an Information Management and Technology Manager between December 2005 and February 2016 when he resigned. By his claim presented in August 2015 and subsequently amended, he made complaints of race discrimination, unfair dismissal and whistleblowing. The latter comprised claims of detriments suffered between December 2009 and February 2016 in consequence of protected disclosures made between February 2007 and March 2015. Following a 12-day hearing all claims were dismissed. In respect of the whistleblowing claim the ET found that there were two protected disclosures and a number of detriments, but that there was no connection between the disclosures and the detriments.
Permission was granted to proceed to a Full Hearing of his appeal on some of the grounds relating to the whistleblowing claim. The essential grounds were that the ET (i) for the purpose of section 43B(1) Employment Rights Act 1996 confused the specificity required (a) within the disclosure and (b) in the case before the Tribunal: Blackbay Ventures Ltd v Gahir [2014] IRLR 416 cf. Bolton School v Evans [2006] IRLR 500; and (ii) in holding that certain of the disclosures were not qualifying disclosures within section 43B(1) and therefore were not protected disclosures, reached conclusions which were perverse.
The EAT dismissed the appeal, holding that there had been no error of law or perversity.

Judges:

Soole J

Citations:

[2019] UKEAT 0122 – 17 – 1704

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 43B(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.637647

McLeary v One Housing Group Ltd: EAT 6 Feb 2019

JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Claim in time and effective date of termination
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
Following her resignation, the Appellant complained of various types of disability discrimination and of constructive unfair dismissal. At a Preliminary Hearing the Judge determined that all the complaints of discrimination during employment were out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. Accordingly, they were all dismissed. The unfair dismissal claim, which was in time, was not affected.
Held: on the particular facts of this case, where it was plainly being asserted that discriminatory treatment during employment had contributed to the constructive dismissal, the particulars of claim should have been treated as including a complaint of constructive dismissal contrary to section 39 Equality Act 2010; and/or the issue should at least have been raised and clarified at the initial Case Management Preliminary Hearing. The Appellant had also raised an argument that her various complaints of treatment contrary to the 2010 Act amounted, taken together, to conduct extending over a period for time purposes; and the Employment Tribunal had erred in not considering that.

Citations:

[2019] UKEAT 0124 – 18 – 0602

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.637642

Pricewaterhousecoopers Llp v Carmichael: ComC 15 Mar 2019

Application by the Pw for an order restraining the defendant from breaching clause 13.10 of the PwC LLP members’ agreement. The application as issued originally sought injunctions restraining breach of various other post-termination restraints within part 13 of the MA, but those elements of the application have been compromised.

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 824 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Company, Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.637504

Ulsterbus v Henderson: CANI 1989

O’Donnell LJ said: ‘It is quite clear in this case that a careful investigation was carried out by Mr Campbell, an appeal was heard by Mr Wilson, and a most meticulous review of all the evidence was carried out as evidenced by Mr Heubeck’s letter of 31.12.85. As I have indicated, in that letter Mr Heubeck meticulously reviewed all the evidence and considered whether there was any reasonable possibility, indeed any possibility, that a mistake had been made. What the Tribunal appears to be suggesting is that in certain circumstances it is incumbent on a reasonable employer to carry out a quasi-judicial investigation with a confrontation of witnesses, and cross-examination of witnesses. While some employers might consider this to be necessary or desirable, to suggest as the Tribunal did, that an employer who failed to do so in a case such as this was acting unreasonably, or in the words of Lord Denning, acting outside ‘a band of reasonableness, within which one employer might reasonably take one view, another quite reasonably take a different view’, is in my view insupportable.’

Judges:

O’Donnell LJ

Citations:

[1989] IRLR 251

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Cited by:

Cited – Santamera v Express Cargo Forwarding (T/A IEC Ltd) EAT 26-Nov-2002
The claimant appealed against a decision that she had not been unfairly dismissed. She had been dismissed after complaints by a colleague, but had not been given the opportunity to examine him during the process.
Held: An employer was not duty . .
Approved – Santamera v Express Cargo Forwarding (T/A IEC Ltd) EAT 26-Nov-2002
The claimant appealed against a decision that she had not been unfairly dismissed. She had been dismissed after complaints by a colleague, but had not been given the opportunity to examine him during the process.
Held: An employer was not duty . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.337765

SG and R Valuation Service Co v Boudrais and others: QBD 12 May 2008

The claimant sought to require the defendants not to work during their notice period to achieve the equivalent of garden leave despite there being no provision for garden leave in the contracts. It was said that the defendants had conspired together as a preliminary to leaving and then competing with the claimants using confidential and other material acquired from them, with attempts to directy damage the business of the claimants.
Held: The case was traditionally approached from the aspect of the employee’s right to work. Such a right existed in this case. The defendants’ form of work depended on the maintenance and development of contacts and those advantages might become stale. Springboard relief was not properly available, since any continuing damage from the defendants’ activities was now controlled by undertaking. On a difficult balancing exercise, the court favoured interim relief so that the defendants should be obliged at least to work their period of notice: ‘The claimant should not be expected to lose the benefit of the notice period and the sterilisation of the defendants’ activity during that period. ‘
Cranston J said: ‘the law is clear. Employees who have a right to work have that right subject to the qualification that they have not, as a result of some prior breach of contract or other duty, demonstrated in a serious way that they are not ready or willing to work, or, to put it another way, that they have not rendered it impossible or reasonably impracticable for the employer to provide work. The breach of contract or other duty must constitute wrongdoing, by reason of which they will profit or potentially profit. In such circumstances, there is no obligation on the employer to provide work, although the contract of employment is ongoing. This is not an implied term in the employment contract but is a qualification to the legal construct, the right to work. ‘

Judges:

Cranston J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1340 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI); Mahmud v Bank of Credit and Commerce International HL 12-Jun-1997
Allowance of Stigma Damages
The employees claimed damages, saying that the way in which their employer had behaved during their employment had led to continuing losses, ‘stigma damages’ after the termination.
Held: It is an implied term of any contract of employment that . .
Cited – Nottingham University v Fishel QBD 19-Jan-2000
When a university embryologist, the respondent, worked abroad he did not act in any breach of fiduciary duty. He remained under a specific duty to direct his fellow embryologists to work in the interests of the university and not in his own . .
Cited – Lansing Linde v Kerr CA 1991
Staughton LJ held that ‘trade secrets’ embrace information used in a trade, restricted in its dissemination, and the disclosure of which would be liable to cause real or significant harm to the party claiming confidentiality. He considered the . .
Cited – Collier v Sunday Referee Publishing Co 1940
The plaintiff was a chief sub-editor with the defendant. He sought the right to work and be paid for working.
Held: The employee had the right to work. Asquith J discussed a former employee’s right to earn a living: ‘It is true that a contract . .
Cited – Langston v Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers CA 19-Dec-1973
Unless there is an express provision for this an employer must provide work to an employee when there is available work to be done. . .
Cited – William Hill Organisation Ltd v Tucker CA 8-Apr-1998
In the absence of a sufficient clause providing otherwise, an employee required not to attend work during his notice period may work for another employer during that period. The court should ask whether the bargain between the employer and the . .
Cited – Miles v Wakefield Metropolitan District Council HL 1987
The claimant was a superintendent registrar of Births Deaths and Marriages. His union instructed him not to conduct weddings on Saturdays. He had been told that if he failed to perform his full range of duties on a Saturday (including marriages), he . .
Cited – Thomas Marshall (Exports) Ltd v Guinle ChD 1979
The managing director defendant had resigned before the end of the contractual term. There was an express covenant in his contract against using or disclosing the company’s confidential information during or after his employment. It was submitted . .
Cited – Bremer Vulkan Schiffbau und Maschineenfabrik v South India Shipping Coroporation HL 1981
The parties had referred their dispute to arbitration, but there had been inordinate delay, and the plaintiffs complained that the delay had prejudiced them, and sought an injunction to prevent further contuance of the arbitration, saying that the . .
Cited – RDF Media Group Plc and Another v Clements QBD 5-Dec-2007
The defendant had sold his business to the claimants and in part consideration had accepted restrictive covenants as to his not competing with them. On indicating his desire to leave the claimants and work for a competitor, made statements which the . .
Cited – Paal Wilson and Co v Partenreederei Hannah Blumenthal (The Hannah Blumenthal) HL 1983
The House was asked whether a contract to abandon an arbitration might be implied from conduct, or a lack of conduct.
Held: The abandonment of a contract can be effected by the entry of the parties, expressly or by necessary inference from . .
Cited – Faccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler CA 1986
Nature of Confidentiality in Information
The appellant plaintiff company had employed the defendant as sales manager. The contract of employment made no provision restricting use of confidential information. He left to set up in competition. The company now sought to prevent him using . .
Cited – Roger Bullivant Ltd v Ellis CA 1987
The plaintiffs sought various remedies against an ex-employee who had set up a company in competition with the plaintiffs. One was for breach of confidence in respect of a card index of customer contacts, a copy of which the first defendant had . .
Applied – Provident Group plc v Hayward 1989
Where there was a period of notice under a contract of employment, and it was not an excessive period, then it may be said, forcefully and correctly, that employers should be able to obtain its protection by paying the employee and preventing him . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.270297

Southampton City College v Randall: EAT 22 Sep 2005

EAT Disability Discrimination: Reasonable Adjustments and Justification; Unfair Dismissal: Reasonableness of Dismissal
The Employment Tribunal is correct in finding that as employer did not regard the employee as disabled and took no steps to consider reasonable adjustments, it was entitled to find that the employer was in breach of sections 5(1) and 5(2) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The Employment Tribunal was also entitled, on the evidence, to find unfair dismissal. Archibald v Fife County Council [2004] IRLR 651; Mid-Staffordshire General Hospitals NHS Trust v Campbell [2003] IRLR 566; Collins v Royal National Theatre Board Limited [2004] IRLR 395 considered.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Birtles

Citations:

UKEAT/0372/05/DM, [2005] UKEAT 0372 – 05 – 0711

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Cited by:

Cited – London Borough of Camden v Price-Job EAT 18-Dec-2007
EAT Disability discrimination – Reasonable adjustments/Justification
1. The employers appealed against two findings by the Tribunal that they had failed to make reasonable adjustments for her disability and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235317