Category: Employment

Murray v Newham Citizens Advice Bureau Ltd: EAT 11 Mar 2003

Citations:

[2003] UKEAT 554 – 01 – 1103

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – E Murray v Newham Citizens Advice Bureau Ltd EAT 14-Jan-2003
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Appeal Tribunal. . .
See Also – E Murray v Newham Citizens Advice Bureau EAT 6-Jul-2000
EAT Disability Discrimination – Jurisdiction . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.191449

Prince’s Trust and others v Beckford: EAT 6 Feb 2003

EAT Race Discrimination – Direct
The Applicant complained of constructive unfair dismissal, race discrimination, victimisation and breach of contract. The Respondents denied the allegation. The First Respondent contended that it did not dismiss the Applicant but that if it did, it acted fairly and on grounds of redundancy. It denied wrongful dismissal; all Respondents denied discrimination and victimisation.

Judges:

McMullen QC HHJ

Citations:

[2003] UKEAT 303 – 01 – 0602, EAT/303/01

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.191380

Military Affairs Office of the Embassy of the State of Kuwait v Caramba-Coker: EAT 10 Apr 2003

The appellant challenged a finding of race discrimination against the respondent, saying the court had no jurisdiction.

Citations:

[2003] UKEAT 1054 – 02 – 1004

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – United Arab Emirates v Abdelghafar and Another EAT 10-Jul-1995
The appellant challenged a decision by the tribunal made in its absence that the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear against it a claim for unfair dismissal.
Held: The tribunal had erred. Though Sengupta had been decided under common law, it . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.191519

Alamo Group (Europe) Ltd v Tucker and Another: EAT 24 Feb 2003

The tribunal was asked whether Regulation 5 of the 1981 Regulations have the effect of transferring to the transferee the duties and liabilities imposed on the employer under Regulations 10 and 11? The Respondent (Alamo) appeals from the decision that Regulation 5 rendered them, as transferees, liable for the default of the transferor.

Judges:

Altman HHJ

Citations:

[2003] UKEAT 994 – 01 – 2402, [2003] ICR 829, [2003] IRLR 266

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Kerry Foods Ltd v A Creber and others EAT 11-Oct-1999
Where a receiver of a company dismissed the employees and then transferred the business to a purchaser, that amounted to an unfair dismissal because it was a TUPE transfer, even though the manufacturing base also moved. The company was liable to the . .
Cited – Transport and General Workers Union v James Mckinnon, J R (Haulage) Ltd, John Maitland and Sons, Bibby Distribution Services EAT 29-May-2001
EAT Transfer of Undertakings – Transfer. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.191330

X v Commissioner Metropolitan Police Service: EAT 29 Jan 2003

The claimant appealed against refusal of a Restricted Reporting Order, refused by the ET saying that it had had no jurisdiction to make one.

Judges:

Burton P J

Citations:

[2003] UKEAT 960 – 01 – 2901, [2003] ICR 1031, [2003] IRLR 415

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2001

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.191326

Marley v Securicor Cash Services Ltd: EAT 15 Jan 2003

Preliminary hearing – appeal against rejection of unfair dismissal claim

Judges:

Burton J P

Citations:

[2003] EAT 1234 – 02 – 1501, [2003] UKEAT 1234 – 02 – 1501

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Citing:

See Also – Marley v Securicor Cash Services Ltd EAT 4-Dec-2001
EAT Contract of Employment – Breach of Contract . .

Cited by:

See Also – Marley v Securicor Cash Services Ltd EAT 4-Dec-2001
EAT Contract of Employment – Breach of Contract . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.191308

King v The University Court of the University of St Andrews: OHCS 3 Jul 2003

Judges:

Lord Bracadale

Citations:

[2003] ScotCS 186

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

See also – King v University Court of the University of St Andrews SCS 30-Jan-2002
The University had employed the pursuer on terms that it was entitled ‘for good cause shown to terminate the appointment of the employee by giving three months’ notice in writing’. He claimed on two bases, first, a breach of the alleged express term . .

Cited by:

See also – King v University Court of the University of St Andrews SCS 30-Jan-2002
The University had employed the pursuer on terms that it was entitled ‘for good cause shown to terminate the appointment of the employee by giving three months’ notice in writing’. He claimed on two bases, first, a breach of the alleged express term . .
See also – King v University Court of the University of St Andrews OHCS 3-Jun-2005
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.190898

Propertycare Ltd v T Gower and others: EAT 14 Nov 2003

EAT Contract of Employment – Definition of employee

Judges:

His Hon Judge Clark

Citations:

UKEAT/547/03, [2003] UKEAT 0547 – 03 – 1411

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – 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 . .
See Also – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.190541

Cunningham v Oaklands College: EAT 6 Nov 2003

Judges:

His Hon Judge Birtles

Citations:

UKEAT/437/03, [2003] UKEAT 0437 – 03 – 0611

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – London Borough of Harrow v Cunningham EAT 2-Nov-1995
The council appealed a finding that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed. He worked in the Cleansing Department, but took on additional private work in refuge disposal in breach of his contract. A co-worker who had done the same was not . .
See Also – Cunningham v Quedos Ltd and Another EAT 20-Aug-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.190544

East Sussex County Council v Hancock: EAT 5 Nov 2003

EAT The Council appealed against a finding that the respondent, their employee, was disabled under the 1995 Act. He suffered from a long term mixed anxiety and depression disorder, but the Council disputed that it should have a substantial and long term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal activities. The expert evidence was that he had no effect on his day-to-day activities by way of loss of concentration or memory.
Held: It was not clear whether the Tribunal had accepted or rejected the expert evidence. It had preferred the evidence of the claimant without giving proper consideration to the expert evidence, and the central conclusion that the claimant was prejudiced by te fear of being in crowds was not supported by any evidence. The appeal succeeded, and the case remitted.

Judges:

Burton P

Citations:

UKEAT/353/03, [2003] UKEAT 0353 – 03 – 0511

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995 3 491)(g) 4(1)(h)

Citing:

Cited – Vicary v British Telecommunications Plc EAT 19-Feb-1998
A medical report in a disability discrimination claim should deal with the doctor’s diagnosis of the impairments, the doctor’s observation of the applicant carrying out day to day activities and the ease with which he was able to perform those . .
Cited – Goodwin v Patent Office EAT 21-Oct-1998
An ability to carry out normal domestic day to day tasks did not mean that a physical impairment was not substantial. The word ‘substantial’ is potentially ambiguous. In that it might mean ‘very large’ or ‘more than minor or trivial’. The code of . .
Cited – Greenwood v British Airways Plc EAT 17-Jun-1999
The tribunal considered a disability discrimination appeal.
Held: ‘In our judgment the tribunal fell into error by considering the question of disability only as at the date of the alleged discriminatory act. We are quite satisfied, as the . .
Cited – Meek v City of Birmingham District Council CA 18-Feb-1987
Employment Tribunals to Provide Sufficient Reasons
Tribunals, when giving their decisions, are required to do no more than to make clear their findings of fact and to answer any question of law raised.
Bingham LJ said: ‘It has on a number of occasions been made plain that the decision of an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.190545

Vaidyanathan v Milton Keynes Council: EAT 25 Nov 2003

EAT Practice and Procedure – Appearance

Judges:

His Hon Judge Ansell

Citations:

UKEAT/670/03, [2003] UKEAT 0670 – 03 – 1812

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Reid Minty (a firm) v Taylor CA 2002
New CPR govern Indemnity Costs awards
The defendant had successfully defended the main claim and now appealed against the refusal of an order for costs on an indemnity basis even though judge thought that the claimants had behaved unreasonably. He had said that some conduct deserving of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.190539

Murali v British Medical Association: EAT 8 Sep 2003

EAT Race Discrimination – Indirect

Judges:

Her Honour Judge A Wakefield

Citations:

UKEAT/850/02/SM, [2003] UKEAT 0850 – 02 – 0912

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Owusu v London Fire and Civil Defence Authority EAT 1-Mar-1995
The employee complained of his employer’s repeated failure to regrade him, and alleged discrimination. The employer said his claim was out of time.
Held: Mummery J made the distinction between single acts of discrimination, and continuing . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.190164

Attorney-General for New South Wales v Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd: PC 14 Mar 1955

(Australia) The Crown could not recover damages for the loss of the services of a police constable as the result of injuries caused by the negligence of a third person. A chief constable was an office held under the Crown, and the usual relationship of master and servant did not apply.
Viscount Simonds said: ”And he is to be regarded as a servant or minister of the King because, as Lord Blackburn said in Coomber v Berks JJ (9 App Cas at p67), the administration of justice, both criminal and civil, and the preservation of order and prevention of crime by means of what is now called police, are amongst the most important functions of government and, by the constitution of this country, these functions do, of common right, belong to the Crown. A constable, then, may be said in a certain context, and sometimes with the appendage ‘or minister’, to be a ‘servant of the Crown”

Judges:

Viscount Simonds

Citations:

[1955] AC 457, [1955] UKPC 6, [1955] 1 All ER 846, [1955] 2 WLR 707

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Cited by:

Cited – Coulter v Chief Constable of Dorset Police ChD 12-Dec-2003
The claimant had failed in an action for damages against the respondent, and had failed to pay the costs award. The respondent issued a statutory demand. He claimed that it was invalid because the chief constable had changed in the interim, and . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex Parte Northumbria Police Authority CA 18-Nov-1987
The Authority appealed from refusal of judicial review of a circular issued by the respondent as to the supply of Plastic Baton Rounds and CS gas from central resources only. The authority suggested that the circular amounted to permission for the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Employment, Police

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.189947

Preston and others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and others: EAT 3 Nov 2003

EAT Judge McMullen QC adopted a limited view of the scope of the new principle of stable employment set out at the ECJ and HL. He thought it was intended ‘to rescue employees who do not have a permanent job’; and that it was confined to cases of the kind considered by the ECJ, that is those relating to applicants who: ‘worked regularly but periodically or intermittently for the same employer, under successive legally separate contracts.’

Judges:

His Hon Judge McMullen QC

Citations:

UKEAT/1069/02 and UKEAT1070/02 U, [2003] UKEAT 1069 – 02 – 1912, [2004] IRLR 96, [2004] ICR 993

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Fletcher and others and Preston and others v Midland Bank Plc and Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust Secretary of State for Health and others EAT 24-Jun-1996
EAT Equal Pay Act – Addendum to principal judgment. Part timers’ claims for membership of pension schemes only made out of time.
EAT Equal Pay Act – (no sub-topic). . .
At HL – Preston and Others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and Others, Fletcher and Others v Midland Bank Plc (No 2) HL 8-Feb-2001
Part-time workers claimed that they had been unlawfully excluded from occupational pension schemes because membership was dependent on an employee working a minimum number of hours per week and that that was discriminatory because a considerably . .
At ECJ – Preston and Others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and Others; Fletcher and Others v Midland Bank plc ECJ 16-May-2000
ECJ Social policy – Men and women – Equal pay – Membership of an occupational pension scheme – Part-time workers – Exclusion – National procedural rules – Principle of effectiveness – Principle of equivalence. . .
See Also – Preston and others v Wolverhampton Healthcare Trust Secretary of State for Health CA 13-Feb-1997
. .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Preston and others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and Others (No 3) CA 7-Oct-2004
The claimants had had their employments transferred to another body under TUPE. They complained that their pension rights had been discriminatory. The employer appealed a finding that their claim had not been out of time.
Held: The effect of . .
Cited – North Cumbria University Hospitals NHS Trust v Fox and Others CA 30-Jun-2010
The employer had altered existing employment contracts. The claimants having commenced discrimination claims then sought to add to the existing proceedings comparators from different job groups. The tribunal had been asked whether, given that this . .
See Also – Bainbridge and others v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council EAT 23-Mar-2007
EAT Practice and Procedure – Compromise
Equal Pay Act – Work rated equivalent; Damages/Compensation
This case raises three issues, two of which are of particular significance in the field of equal . .
At EAT – 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: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.189927

V v Commission T-200/03: ECFI 28 Nov 2003

(Order) Application for interim measures.

Citations:

[2003] EUECJ T-200/03

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Order – V v Commission T-200/03 ECJ 21-Feb-2006
Officials – Dismissal for incompetence – Article 51 of the Staff Regulations – Manifest error of assessment – Misuse of powers – Duty of care – Rights of the defense – Proportionality – Equal treatment – Statement of reasons – Staff report – . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.189907

Jackson v Ghost Ltd and Another: EAT 2 Sep 2003

The EAT rejected jurisdiction over a claim for unfair dismissal. The employment must have ‘a sufficient, that is substantial connection with this country’.

Judges:

Judge Peter Clark

Citations:

[2003] EAT 0547 – 02 – 0209, [2003] UKEAT 0547 – 02 – 0209, [2003] IRLR 824

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 196

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Serco Ltd v Lawson and Foreign and Commonwealth Office CA 23-Jan-2004
The applicant had been employed to provide services to RAF in the Ascension Islands. He alleged constructive dismissal. There was an issue as to whether somebody working in the Ascension Islands was protected by the 1996 Act. The restriction on . .
Cited – Serco Ltd v Lawson; Botham v Ministry of Defence; Crofts and others v Veta Limited HL 26-Jan-2006
Mr Lawson was employed by Serco as a security supervisor at the British RAF base on Ascension Island, which is a dependency of the British Overseas Territory of St Helena. Mr Botham was employed as a youth worker at various Ministry of Defence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.189598

Wellbeck Steel Service Centre v Roworth: EAT 22 Sep 2003

Citations:

[2003] EAT 0550 – 03 – 2209, [2003] UKEAT 0550 – 03 – 2209

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – T Roworth v Welbeck Steel Service Centres Ltd EAT 27-Mar-2001
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for Dismissal . .

Cited by:

See Also – T Roworth v Welbeck Steel Service Centres Ltd EAT 27-Mar-2001
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for Dismissal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.189617

Wyndham (T/A John Wyndham Hair Care) v Miller: EAT 1 Jul 2003

Citations:

[2003] EAT 1034 – 02 – 0107, [2003] UKEAT 1034 – 02 – 0107

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Wyndham (T/A John Wyndham Hair Care) v Miller EAT 2-Dec-2002
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Wyndham (T/A John Wyndham Hair Care) v Miller EAT 2-Dec-2002
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.189564

Drake International Systems Ltd (T/A Drake Ports Distribution Services) v O’Hare: EAT 2 Sep 2003

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Compensation.

Judges:

Ansell HHJ

Citations:

[2003] EAT 0384 – 03 – 0209, EAT/384/03, EAT/577/03

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.189591

Sahota v Wolverhampton City Council (0414): EAT 15 Aug 2003

Claimant’s application for leave to appeal from dismissal of claims for disability and race discrimination.
Held: rejected.

Citations:

[2003] EAT 0414 – 03 – 1508, [2003] UKEAT 0414 – 03 – 1508

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Sahota v Wolverhampton City Council EAT 8-Nov-2002
race discrimination and disability discrimination in recruitment. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Sahota v Wolverhampton City Council 0415 EAT 15-Aug-2003
Two preliminary hearings in relation to a decision and a refusal to review of an Employment Tribunal which unanimously decided that the Applicant’s claim for racial discrimination was dismissed on the grounds of jurisdiction and specifically on the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.189580