Category: Employment

HM Prison Service v Gundill: EAT 4 May 2001

Citations:

[2001] UKEAT 1375 – 00 – 0405

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Flint v Eastern Electricity Board EAT 1975
The employee had failed to mention at the hearing of his claim for a redundancy payment a fact which was arguably highly material to the issue of whether his refusal of alternative employment was reasonable; and his claim had been dismissed. He . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.203872

Oko-Jaja v Lewisham Borough of Lewisham: EAT 8 May 2001

The applicant had complained of disability discrimination, and failed. He had been ordered to pay a sum towards the costs of the respondent. He appealed that order. He had previously issued a complaint, and lost that complaint, being warned then of the possibility of such an order. This second complaint was of victimisation, but the decision makers knew nothing of his first complaint. His complaint was dismissed. The tribunal recognised the unreasonableness of his complaint, and the substantial cost to the respondent, and awarded pounds 250 costs. The respondent cross appealed, saying that the award should not have been so limited.
Held: In making that decision the tribunal had taken into account a suggestion that the appellant had had all relevant evidence available to him from an early stage. The nature of victimisation complaints is that they are difficult to prove, and it may often be proper for a complainant to rely upon the hope of cross examination.
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal.

Judges:

Mrs Recorder Cox QC

Citations:

EAT/417/00, [2001] UKEAT 417 – 00 – 0805

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Statutes:

Employment Tribunals Constitution and Procedure Regulations 1993 Sch 1 r 12

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – M J Benyon and others v David Scadden and others EAT 14-Jun-1999
The tribunal had found that the claimants and their union had pursued their case, even though they recognised the weakness of the case, with the additional intention of persuading their employer to recognise their union, UNISON. Such behaviour was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment, Costs

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.203899

Reid v North West Ceilings Ltd (T/A Shopspec): EAT 2 Apr 2001

Definition of employee

Judges:

Mr Recorder Langstaff QC

Citations:

[2001] UKEAT 58 – 00 – 0204, EAT/58/00

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Citing:

See Also – Reid v North West Ceiling Systems Ltd (T/A Shopspec) EAT 29-Mar-2000
Interim hearing – matter approved for full hearing. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.203813

Enesco European Giftware Group Ltd v Birkett: EAT 25 Apr 2001

Citations:

[2001] UKEAT 190 – 01 – 2504

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Enesco European Giftware Group Ltd v Birkett EAT 6-Dec-2001
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Enesco European Giftware Group Ltd v Birkett EAT 6-Dec-2001
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.203785

Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc: EAT 30 Apr 2001

Preliminary hearing on appeal – application for adjournment. Dismissed on papers.

Judges:

Wakefield J

Citations:

[2001] UKEAT 1450 – 99 – 3004

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See Also – Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc EAT 9-Jul-1997
. .
See Also – Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc EAT 15-Jul-1999
. .
See Also – Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc EAT 20-Feb-1998
. .
See Also – Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc EAT 12-May-2000
. .
See Also – Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc CA 29-Jan-2001
Renewed application for permission to appeal. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc CA 5-Nov-2001
Leave to appeal refused. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.203765

Lloyd v ITF World Expo Ltd: EAT 25 Apr 2001

EAT The Employment Tribunal dismissed the claim made by the Appellant for unfair dismissal. The Appellant had alleged that he was dismissed because he had taken part or proposed to take part in the activities of an independent trade union and that dismissal was automatically unfair.

Judges:

Charles J

Citations:

[2001] UKEAT 1229 – 99 – 2504

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.203802

Gbokoyi v Bennette’s Eco-Inverter (Environmental Services) Ltd: EAT 22 Mar 2001

Preliminary hearing – leave to appeal granted

Judges:

Mr Recorder Burke QC

Citations:

[2001] UKEAT 1282 – 00 – 2203

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Leave – Gbokoyi v Bennett’s Eco-Inverter (Environmental Services) Ltd EAT 18-Jan-2002
The claimant appealed against dismissal of her unfair dismissal and of her maternity related discrimination claim.
Held: The appeal succeeded: ‘it does not appear that the tribunal gave any separate consideration to whether the pregnancy was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.203660

MSF v Refuge Assurance Plc and Another: EAT 19 Feb 2001

The Union complained of inadequate consultation by the company on its making redundancies, and now appealed form a decision that the section had not been breached.

Judges:

Lindsay J P

Citations:

[2001] UKEAT 1371 – 99 – 1902, [2002] ICR 1365, [2002] IRLR 324, [2002] 2 CMLR 27, [2002] Emp LR 767

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1996 188

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – MSF v Refuge Assurance Plc, United Friendly Insurance EAT 15-Feb-2002
EAT The EAT considered the employer’s duties to consult on making redundancies. The ET had found that company had satisfied the requirements. The Union argued that the duty to consult arose as soon as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.203544

Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Harley: EAT 19 Feb 2001

Appeal against a finding that a claim of disability discrimination was in time.

Judges:

Charles J

Citations:

[2001] UKEAT 518 – 00 – 1902, EAT/518/00

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995

Cited by:

See Also – Harley v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis EAT 18-Sep-2001
Application for hearing to be postponed. . .
Cited – Meikle v Nottinghamshire County Council EAT 19-Aug-2003
EAT Disability Discrimination – Less favourable treatment. The appellant brought proceedings against the Respondents alleging that they had failed to make adjustments to her workplace and conditions so as to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.203494

Chester City Football Club Ltd v Wingrove: EAT 28 Feb 2001

Judges:

Slade QC

Citations:

[2001] UKEAT 0464 – 00 – 2802

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

See Also – Chester City Football Club Ltd v Wingrove EAT 4-Oct-2001
A senior director of the football club had been dismissed. He succeeded in a claim for unfair dismissal. The club appealed.
Held: The papers disclosed no perverse finding sufficient to justify setting the decision aside. Claims that he had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.203491

Turner v Scope (A Registered Charity): EAT 18 Dec 2002

Appeal from rejection of claim for constructive unfair dismissal and of discrimination.

Judges:

Timothy Brennan QC Rec

Citations:

[2002] UKEAT 0071 – 02 – 1812

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Ministry of Defence v Jeremiah CA 1980
The court considered the meaning of ‘detriment’ in discrimination law. Brightman LJ said: ‘I think a detriment exists if a reasonable worker would or might take the view that the duty was in all the circumstances to his detriment.’
Lord Justice . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.203346

Lawal v Chesterfield Borough Council: EAT 26 Jan 2001

The claimant had begun proceedings alleging race discrimination by the respondent in the conduct of recruitment. The Council had replied requesting that the claim be struck out as frvolous and vexatious. The tribunal had rejected that request and refused to order a deposit, though it did say that his claim was unlikely to succeed.
Held: ‘Mr Lawal, dissatisfied by meeting with total success, asked for extended reasons, perhaps with a view to an appeal’ and ‘it is only points of law with which we are concerned, referable to that decision emerges from the Notice of Appeal. Mr Lawal was entirely victorious on that occasion. The Employment Tribunal’s view on that day that his IT1 had no prospect of success was not a determination of that issue but just a necessary stage in the application under Rule 7(4) if the application was to be fully considered. ‘ Application for leave to appeal rejected.

Judges:

Lidsay J P

Citations:

[2001] UKEAT 910 – 00 – 2601

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Appeal from – Lawal v Chesterfield Borough Council EAT 9-May-2001
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.203408

Lawal v Northern Spirit Ltd: EAT 15 Jan 2001

Citations:

[2001] UKEAT 889 – 00 – 1501

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See Also – Lawal v Northern Spirit Ltd EAT 6-Oct-1999
The applicant objected that one of the lay members of the Appeal Tribunal had, on other occasions, sat with a recorder who, as counsel, was appearing for a party in that appeal.
Held: There was no real possibility of bias from this scenario. . .
See Also – Lawal v Northern Spirit Ltd EAT 15-Feb-1999
The appellant wished to pursue an appeal against the striking out of his claim, and objected that contrary to the Rules, a member of the board who had heard the pre-hearing review had also sat on the full hearing.
Held: The appeal should be . .

Cited by:

See Also – Lawal v Northern Spirit Ltd EAT 6-Oct-1999
The applicant objected that one of the lay members of the Appeal Tribunal had, on other occasions, sat with a recorder who, as counsel, was appearing for a party in that appeal.
Held: There was no real possibility of bias from this scenario. . .
See Also – Lawal v Northern Spirit Ltd EAT 15-Jan-2002
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Appeal Tribunal. . .
See Also – Lawal v Northern Spirit Ltd CA 15-Jan-2002
Application for leave to appeal . .
See Also – Lawal v Northern Spirit Ltd EAT 15-Jan-2002
. .
See Also – AA Lawal v Northern Spirit Limited CA 9-Aug-2002
The appellant had had his case considered by the Employment Appeal Tribunal. He complained that his opponent had been represented in court by an advocate who himself sat part time in the EAT, and that this would lead to undue weight and respect . .
See Also – Lawal v Northern Spirit Ltd CA 30-Oct-2002
. .
See Also – Lawal v Northern Spirit Limited HL 19-Jun-2003
Counsel appearing at the tribunal had previously sat as a judge with a tribunal member. The opposing party asserted bias in the tribunal.
Held: The test in Gough should be restated in part so that the court must first ascertain all the . .
See Also – Lawal v Northern Spirit Ltd CA 19-Feb-2004
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.203409

Gilbert and others v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council: EAT 18 Jan 2001

The parties sought to appeal the method of calculation of the notice period in redundancy calculations affecting part time workers in educational establishments: ‘ The employers contended that since the employees were paid by 12 equal monthly payments a week’s pay should be based on a year of 52 weeks.
The employees pointed out that, although the payments were made by 12 payments they were calculated on the basis of a working year inclusive of holidays of 43 or 44 weeks as the case may be, and it was their view that the week’s pay should be calculated on the basis of the lesser period which would, of course, give them a larger award.’
Held: A reasonably arguable point of law had been raised and it could affect many people. The appeal should be allowed to proceed.

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

[2001] UKEAT 674 – 00 – 1801

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

See Also – Gilbert and others v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council EAT 12-Apr-2002
EAT Mr Gilbert was paid for 44 weeks a year, of which 38 weeks were those in which he was required to work. The issue was whether, as the ET had held, ‘a week’s pay’ fell to be calculated by dividing the annual . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.203385

Teinaz v Wandsworth Borough Council: EAT 25 Jan 2001

Preliminary hearing.

Judges:

Lindsay J P

Citations:

[2001] UKEAT 777 – 00 – 2501

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

See Also – Teinaz v Wandsworth EAT 22-Nov-2001
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal. . .
Preliminary Hearing – Teinaz v London Borough of Wandsworth CA 16-Jul-2002
The claimant applied for an adjournment of his application. The tribunal suspected the basis of his medical certificate, and, refusing the adjournment, proceeded in his absence. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed an appeal, and the employer now . .
Appeal from – Dr Y R Teinaz v Wandsworth Borough Council CA 16-Jul-2001
The applicant had made a claim to the tribunal, but then applied for an adjournment on medical grounds, submitting a medical certificate.
Held: Where a refusal to exercise a discretion could lead to the loss of significant rights, a court . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.203456

Opare-Addo v Wandsworth: EAT 5 Dec 2002

Citations:

[2002] UKEAT 0740 – 01 – 0512

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Adams v GKN Sankey Ltd EAT 1980
The employee had been given twelve weeks notice of redundancy dismissal, and was not required to attend work during the notice period, but then worked additional days. A letter was written in November stating ‘you are given 12 weeks’ notice of . .
See Also – Opare-Addo v Wandsworth Borough Council EAT 12-Dec-2001
. .
Cited – Opare-Addo v Wandsworth Borough Council EAT 11-Jul-2002
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.203329

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 bound to allow an employee subject to a disciplinary hearing to cross examine those who have made statements on which the employer wishes to rely: ‘in the workplace investigation of misconduct, cross-examination of complainants by the employee whose conduct is in question (or even confrontations between them) are very much the exception’ because ‘Section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the cases decided under it and its predecessors do not, of course, require the dismissing employer to be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the employee whose conduct is in question has actually done what he or she is alleged to have done. . In a dismissal based on conduct, it is sufficient for the employer to have a genuine belief that the employee has behaved in the manner alleged, to have reasonable grounds for that belief, and to have conducted an investigation which is fair and proportionate to the employer’s capacity and resources. The employer has to act fairly, but fairness does not require a forensic or quasi-judicial investigation, for which the employer is unlikely in any event to be qualified, and for which he, she or it may lack the means.’

Citations:

EAT/780/01, [2002] UKEAT 780 – 01 – 2611, [2003] IRLR 273

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 96

Citing:

Cited – 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 . .
Cited – British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell EAT 1978
B had been dismissed for allegedly being involved with a number of other employees in acts of dishonesty relating to staff purchases. She had denied the abuse. The tribunal had found the dismissal unfair in the methods used to decide to dismiss her. . .
Cited – Khanum v Mid Glamorgan Area Health Authority EAT 1979
In a domestic tribunal such as that a disciplinary hearing, all that is required is that the three basic requirements of natural justice be fulfilled; namely (1) that the person should know the nature of the accusation against him or her; (2) that . .
Cited – British Leyland v Swift CA 1981
The court upheld the dismissal by employers of a long-serving employee who had stolen and subsequently altered a road fund licence belonging to his employers and had persistently lied about the incident.
Held: When considering the decision of . .
Cited – Neale v Hereford and Worcester County Council CA 1986
May LJ said that the decision of an employer’s disciplinary hearing: ‘neither the EAT nor this Court could disturb their decision unless one could say in effect ‘My goodness, that is certainly wrong’.’ He discussed the test for an apellate court . .
Approved – 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 . .
Cited – ADT Auctions Ltd v Nayar EAT 7-Apr-1998
The EAT considered a complaint by the dismissed employee that he had not been given the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses who had provided statements against him. . .
Cited – Southdown Housing Association v Barnard EAT 27-Jun-1997
Judge Hull said: ‘although an employer when conducting a disciplinary enquiry is undoubtedly required to behave fairly, he is not required to conduct a forensic hearing, a court-style hearing, in which witnesses are produced for cross-examination. . .
Cited – Regina v Board of Visitors of Hull Prison, Ex parte St Germain (No 2) CA 1979
Proper Limits on Imprisonment
The court discussed the proper limits of imprisonment: ‘despite the deprivation of his general liberty, a prisoner remains invested with residuary rights appertaining to the nature and conduct of his incarceration . . An essential characteristic of . .
See Also – Santamera v Express Cargo Forwarding (T/A Iec Ltd) EAT 1-Nov-2001
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Kennedy v Ashfield In2Focus Ltd NIIT 19-Mar-2008
. .
Cited – Abbey National Plc v Morgan EAT 11-Nov-2003
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reasonableness of dismissal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.203258