Morgan v Department for Employment and Learning: NIIT 24 Jan 2014

[2014] NIIT 1269 – 13IT
Bailii
Northern Ireland
Citing:
CitedWhite v Franklin CA 1965
The share owners placed half of the issued shares in the company in trust for the taxpayer, in order to persuade him to continue his involvement in the family company as an active director. The trust provided that the income from the shares should . .
CitedHM Revenue and Customs v PA Holdings Ltd CA 30-Nov-2011
The company made available to certain employees discretionary annual bonuses which were paid instead by way of shares and received dividends. It now appealed against findings that the payments were taxable subject to Schedule F rates and were liable . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.522881

Robert Sage Ltd (T/A Prestige Nursing Care Ltd) v O’ Connell and Others: EAT 13 Mar 2014

EAT Transfer of Undertakings : Transfer – The Employment Judge did not err in holding that a hope and wish that following a service provision change activities would be carried out by a transferee in connection with a task of short term duration was not an intention that they would be so carried out. Accordingly the Employment Judge did not err in holding that the exception in Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 Regulation 3(3)(a)(ii) did not apply to exclude the transfer of activities from the scope of TUPE.
The Employment Judge erred in holding that a Claimant who was prohibited from carrying out work with a client, X, was assigned to the group of employees working with X which group was subject to the service provision change. Fairhurst Ward Abbotts Ltd v Botes Building and others [2003] UKEAT/1007/00/DA and [2004] IRLR 304 and United Guarding Services Ltd v St James Security Group Ltd and another [2004] UKEAT/0770/03/RN considered. Decision that the Claimant was not so assigned substituted. Accordingly the appeals in relation to Claimants 1 to 6 were dismissed and that in relation to Claimant 7 allowed.

Slade J DBE
[2014] UKEAT 0336 – 13 – 1303
Bailii
Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 3(3)(a)(ii)
England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.522643

Exec Catering Ltd (T/A Kaffeccinos Coffee House) and Another v Kaczynska: EAT 31 Jan 2014

EAT Harassment : JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Claim in time and effective date of termination
The Employment Tribunal failed to consider the Respondent’s time point taken in the claim of racial harassment. The Respondent’s appeal is allowed.
There was a misdirection as to the test for harassment in the sexual harassment claim. The Claimant’s cross-appeal is allowed.
The case is remitted to the same Employment Tribunal for re-consideration

Peter Clark J
[2014] UKEAT 0182 – 13 – 3101
Bailii
England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.522637

Konczak v BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd: EAT 13 Jan 2014

EAT Sex Discrimination : Other Losses – UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Compensation
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Compensation
The Employment Tribunal had erred by not considering whether the psychiatric illness, which resulted in the loss in this case, had divisible causes and whether, if it did, the award fell to be apportioned. In concluding that there had been a failure to mitigate commencing three years after the date of dismissal the Employment Tribunal had failed to give any comprehensible account as to why that date had been chosen. Both of these matters raised on the Employer’s appeal were remitted for further consideration by the same Employment Tribunal on the evidence already heard and the facts already found.
On the cross-appeal mathematical errors of calculation in the judgment were remitted to the Employment Tribunal for reconsideration, but although the cross-appeal was also allowed in relation to a decision made by the Employment Tribunal wrongly limiting the scope of the cross-examination of the Employer’s psychiatric expert witness, no further order was made because the terms of the remission in relation to the appeal rendered the point academic.

Judge Hand QC
[2014] UKEAT 0277 – 13 – 1301
Bailii
England and Wales

Employment, Damages, Discrimination

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.522638

Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust v Shah: EAT 16 Jan 2014

EAT Unfair Dismissal : Reasonableness of Dismissal – Taken as a whole the Employment Tribunal’s Judgment contained enough material to suggest that after starting out well by directing themselves in terms of the BHS v Burchell case, the Employment Tribunal has slipped into ‘the substitution mindset’. Large parts of the Judgment consist of assertion without any explanation as to how the conclusions have been arrived at. The case was remitted to a differently constituted Employment Tribunal for a complete re-hearing.

Judge Hand QC
[2014] UKEAT 0505 – 12 – 1601
Bailii
England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.522639

Andrews v Kings College NHS Foundation Trust and Another: EAT 12 Mar 2014

EAT Practice and Procedure : Appellate Jurisdiction or Reasons or Burns-Barke – The Claimant worked as a part-time nurse from 1982 to 2010. She claimed that she was entitled to pension rights or compensation for the lack of those rights in respect of 3 periods, 1982 to 1988, 1988 to 1991 and 1991 to 2010.
Her claim for the first period had already been dealt with. The Employment Tribunal found in her favour as to the second period and made a declaration. Her appeal based on the inadequacy of the declaration made by the ET as to her rights in respect of that period was resolved by agreement, on the basis of an explanation by the EAT, at paras 11 to 13 of the judgment, of the meaning and effect of the ET’s declaration.
For the third period, the Claimant claimed compensation for breach by the employers of the implied term, derived from Scally (1991 IRLR 525), that they should take reasonable steps to draw her attention to her entitlement under the NHS pension scheme. The issue was whether such reasonable steps had been taken; the Tribunal resolved that issue in favour of the employers.
Held on appeal that the Tribunal had reached a factual decision on the question of the reasonableness of the steps taken by the employers to inform their staff of their pension rights which was open to them and which was not perverse. Their reference to the sending of information by leaflet to all staff was intended as a statement that it was sent to both part-time and full-time staff and not that it was successfully sent to each and everyone of the 500 plus staff; the Tribunal had not lost sight of the undisputed evidence that a very small (about 15) number of part-time staff had complained that they had not received the leaflet. No error of law was made out.

Jeffrey Burke QC
[2014] UKEAT 0304 – 13 – 1203
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedScally v Southern Health and Social Services Board HL 1991
The plaintiffs were junior doctors employed by the respondents. Their terms had been collectively negotiated, and incorporated the Regulations. During the period of their employment different regulations had given and then taken way their right to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.522641

Monji v Boots Management Services Ltd: EAT 20 Mar 2014

EAT Unfair Dismissal : Reasonableness of Dismissal – Unfair dismissal. Whether Employment Tribunal adopted the correct approach in a case where the potential consequences for the employee were sufficiently grave that this was a relevant circumstance for the purpose of s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996 and warranted a heightened assessment of the Respondent’s investigation and decision, see A v B [2003] IRLR 405, EAT and Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust v Roldan [2010] IRLR 721, CA.
Held: notwithstanding the ET’s failure to make express reference to the Roldan line of authorities, it was entitled to reach the view that it had. The evidence taken into account by the Respondent was not dependent upon the word of one witness and the investigation and decision taken withstood the more stringent assessment required in such cases.

Eady QC J
[2014] UKEAT 0292 – 13 – 2003
Bailii
Employment Rights Act 1996 98(4)
England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.522642

BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd v Konczak: EAT 13 Jan 2014

EAT Sex Discrimination : Other Losses – UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Compensation
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Compensation
The Employment Tribunal had erred by not considering whether the psychiatric illness, which resulted in the loss in this case, had divisible causes and whether, if it did, the award fell to be apportioned. In concluding that there had been a failure to mitigate commencing three years after the date of dismissal the Employment Tribunal had failed to give any comprehensible account as to why that date had been chosen. Both of these matters raised on the Employer’s appeal were remitted for further consideration by the same Employment Tribunal on the evidence already heard and the facts already found
On the cross-appeal mathematical errors of calculation in the judgment were remitted to the Employment Tribunal for reconsideration, but although the cross-appeal was also allowed in relation to a decision made by the Employment Tribunal wrongly limiting the scope of the cross-examination of the Employer’s psychiatric expert witness, no further order was made because the terms of the remission in relation to the appeal rendered the point academic.

Judge Hand QC
[2014] UKEAT 0243 – 13 – 1301
Bailii
England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.522636

Thames Honda Ltd v Purkis: EAT 10 Jan 2014

EAT Unfair Dismissal : Reason for Dismissal Including Substantial Other – Employment Tribunal erred in making a finding on this question when the issue had been conceded by the Claimant and no opportunity given to the parties to address the possibility of a revision to the list of issues.
The ET having made findings on fairness in the alternative, however, the point was not fatal to the decision on unfair dismissal.
Fairness
The ET’s approach to the question of fairness upheld. It was entitled to have regard to the Respondent’s own procedures and to the ACAS Code. Its conclusions were not perverse.
HARASSMENT
SEX DISCRIMINATION – Burden of proof
Harassment related to sex: whether the ET erred in the application of the burden of proof in finding that the unwarranted conduct in question ‘related to’ the Claimant’s sex. Either insufficient reasoning provided to explain the ET’s conclusion or there had been a misapplication of the burden of proof in this case. Appeal allowed on this ground only and point remitted to same ET.
‘Unwanted’; ‘Course of employment’; ‘Reasonable steps’ defence
ET’s findings on these issues disclosed no error of law, were not perverse and were adequately explained. All other grounds of appeal dismissed.

Eady QC J
[2014] UKEAT 0265 – 13 – 1001
Bailii
England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.522640

Nierodzik v Samodzielny Publiczny Psychiatryczny Zaklad Opieki Zdrowotnej im. dr. Stanislawa Deresza w Choroszczy: ECJ 13 Mar 2014

ECJ Request for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Directive 1999/70/EC – Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP – Clause 4 – Concept of ’employment conditions’ – Notice period for the termination of a fixed-term employment contract – Difference in treatment between workers on contracts of indefinite duration

C-38/13, [2014] EUECJ C-38/13
Bailii
Directive 1999/70/EC
European

Employment

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.522489

Mairquez Samohano v Universitat Pompeu Fabra: ECJ 13 Mar 2014

ECJ Social policy – Directive 1999/70/EC – Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP – Universities – Associate lecturers – Successive fixed-term employment contracts – Clause 5(1) – Measures to prevent the abusive use of fixed-term contracts – Concept of ‘objective reasons’ justifying such contracts – Clause 3 – Concept of ’employment contract of indefinite duration’- Penalties – Right to compensation – Difference in treatment between permanent workers

C.G. Fernlund, P
C-190/13, [2014] EUECJ C-190/13
Bailii
Directive 1999/70/EC
European

Employment

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.522488

Osaghae v United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust: EAT 17 Dec 2013

EAT Practice and Procedure : Striking-Out or Dismissal – Employment Judge was wrong to dismiss claim in accordance with earlier order following settlement at court; but that outcome was plainly and unarguably correct given that the Claimant had then withdrawn his claim under ET r.25 (2004 Rules).
Claimant’s appeal dismissed.

Peter Clark J
[2013] UKEAT 0576 – 12 – 1712
Bailii
England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.522371

Wijesundera v Heathrow 3Pl Logistics Ltd (Debarred) and Another: EAT 5 Dec 2013

EAT Jurisdictional Points : Fraud and Illegality – A Sri Lankan woman agreed to work for the First and Second Respondents, but made it clear she could not do so unless and until she was sponsored by them to do so, so that she had a valid work permit. For some months she remained in contact with the Respondents, until eventually she began to work in anticipation of, but without, the necessary work permit. During that period – prior to her actually working – she was seriously sexually assaulted by the Second Respondent.
Her work permit did materialise but after she had worked for over a year, during which she had again been subjected to serious sexual harassment.
An Employment Tribunal dismissed her claims because either she was not an employee, and could not claim, or she was but was employed under an illegal contract, which it would not condone.
On an appeal at which the Respondents were debarred from appearing, held that the ET had failed to consider s.40(1)(b) of the Equality Act 2010 which protected applicants for employment (which she plainly was when the first assaults occurred); and had wrongly failed to identify the principles by which defences of illegality were to be considered when it wrongly asked whether the facts of the present case could be distinguished from two Court of Appeal authorities, neither of which established the applicable principles. Applying these principles as set out in Hall v Woolston Leisure, the claim save in respect of dismissal was not so inextricably bound up with the contract of employment or the illegality as to be defeated by the defence.
The ET had not resolved whether the First or Second Respondents were the employer, but the findings of fact justified only one answer. However, the question whether the First Respondent was liable under s.109 EqA 2010 for the actions of the Second Respondent who alone had been the sexual predator was remitted to the ET, with observations as to the approach it should adopt.

Langstaff P J
[2013] UKEAT 0222 – 13 – 0512
Bailii
Equality Act 2010 40(1)(b)
England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.522374

London Borough of Barnet v Unison and Another: EAT 19 Dec 2013

EAT Redundancy : Collective Consultation and Information – The Appellant is a local authority which was contemplating redundancies of staff and also transfers of some employees to third parties. The Employment Tribunal found that it had breached the consultation and information requirements in section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and regulation 13 of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006 No. 246). It went on to make a protective award under the 1992 Act and an award of compensation under the 2006 Regulations. In calculating the periods for which those awards should be made it took as a starting point the maximum that is available in law and worked down from that.
Held (1) The Tribunal had misdirected itself in law because the starting point of the maximum was, in accordance with Court of Appeal and EAT authority, only to be used where the employer had not engaged in any consultation at all. Those were not the circumstances of the present case. The case would therefore be remitted to the same Tribunal, which was familiar with the evidence, having conducted a two day hearing, to reconsider its decision in accordance with the judgment of the Appeal Tribunal. (2) The Tribunal had also erred in law in failing to make a declaration that the Second Respondent (the transferee in one case) was jointly and severally liable for breach of the 2006 Regulations under regulation 15(9). A declaration to that effect would therefore be made by the Appeal Tribunal. (3) The Second Respondent’s cross-appeal would be dismissed, as any question of apportionment as between that Respondent and the Appellant was a matter for the ordinary courts and not for the Employment Tribunal.

Singh J
[2013] UKEAT 0191 – 13 – 1912
Bailii
Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 13
England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.522369

Timbulas v The Construction Workers Guild Ltd: EAT 5 Dec 2013

EAT Contract of Employment : Sick Pay and Holiday Pay – This is a case in which it is said there was an insufficiency of evidence. The Claimant was a construction worker, who claimed holiday pay. He said that he would have taken holidays, but could not tell the Employment Tribunal exactly which holidays he had taken. He said that the sites he had worked on were sometimes closed due to bad weather or perhaps other reasons. The Employment Judge made an order giving payment for Bank Holidays but declined to guess as to the rest of the holidays.
The second matter in the case relates to consequential loss, and it is said that submissions were made, to put it at its broadest, about consequential loss but that the Employment Judge did not deal with the matter, although the parties were prepared and, on one view at least, the paperwork raised the matter. While I cannot resolve any dispute of fact between the Claimant’s representatives on the one hand and the Employment Judge on the other, I do hold that I should err on the side of caution and if there is any doubt that the Claimant was afforded a fair trial in the sense of having what he wanted to have put before the Employment Judge put before him, then I should err on the side of caution and allow the Claimant to have that part of his claim heard.
I have heard the parties on it today and I have done that because it seems to me to be in the interest of justice to do so.

Lady Stacey
[2013] UKEAT 0325 – 13 – 0512
Bailii
England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.522373

Swanston New Golf Club Ltd v Gallagher (Senior): EAT 10 Dec 2013

EAT Unfair Dismissal : Polkey Deduction – The Appellant employed the Respondent as course manager and head green keeper until May 2012. The Respondent was suspended by the Appellant on 8 May 2012. Disciplinary procedure followed including a disciplinary hearing and an appeal. On 3 July 2012 the Respondent was told that his appeal had not succeeded. The Respondent lodged a claim of unfair dismissal which was successful. The Employment Tribunal found that no reduction should be made for the chance that the Respondent might have been dismissed fairly (Polkey). It also found that the Respondent had contributed to his own dismissal and that it would be just and equitable to make a deduction of 33% from his compensatory award. The Appellant argued that a Polkey reduction should have been made and that the deduction in respect of contribution was too low.
Held: the ET explained why it made no reduction under Polkey and did not err in law. The matter of the percentage of reduction in respect of contribution was a matter for the Tribunal at first instance and was adequately explained by the judgment. Appeal dismissed.

Lady Stacey
[2013] UKEAT 0033 – 13 – 1012
Bailii
England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.522372

London Central Bus Company Ltd v Manning: EAT 11 Dec 2013

EAT Unfair Dismissal : Reasonableness of Dismissal – Dismissal found to be fair at disciplinary stage converted to an unfair dismissal following appeal. However, no material unfairness found at the appeal. The highest it was put was that the Claimant was not shown a list of unsuitable vacancies in circumstances where he was not medically fit to continue his employment as a bus driver.
With reluctance (the Claimant had 23 years unblemished service) employer appeal allowed a finding of unfair dismissal set aside.

Peter Clark J
[2013] UKEAT 0103 – 13 – 1112
Bailii
England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.522370

Olaleye v Liberata UK and Others: EAT 29 Oct 2013

EAT Practice and Procedure : Application/Claim – Amendment
The Claimant made claims in respect of disability. In her forms ET1 she stated that she suffered from stress incontinence following a prolapse. She stated that the consequence of the incontinence was that she could not control her bodily functions which gave rise to comment from her colleagues and made it difficult for her to work in an open-plan office. She claimed that she became anxious and stressed and suffered from insomnia. At a Pre-Hearing Review to determine whether or not she was disabled it became apparent that the Respondents expected evidence to be led on her physical condition only. She sought to amend to include stress and anxiety and insomnia. The Employment Judge allowed her amendment to the extent of including insomnia only. She appealed. Held that the case should be remitted to the Employment Tribunal for a PHR on all of the Claimant’s claims including that she suffered from stress and anxiety as a result of the underlying condition of stress incontinence.

Lady Stacey
[2013] UKEAT 0445 – 13 – 2910
Bailii
England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.522351

Stonehouse Coaches Ltd v Smith: EAT 24 Oct 2013

EAT Unfair Dismissal : Polkey Deduction – The dismissal of a bus driver for using foul language, in front of the schoolchildren he was driving, towards a female passenger was held unfair because the proprietor of the bus undertaking had summarily dismissed the Claimant without an adequate hearing. Four weeks loss of wages was awarded as compensation for future loss, since the Employment Tribunal regarded it as 100% likely there would then have been a fair dismissal. The Employment Judge rejected evidence from other passengers relating to an earlier incident as irrelevant. The Respondent appealed arguing she should not have done so and that the assessment of Polkey losses should have taken it into account.
Held: the appeal was misconceived. The focus on a claim of unfair dismissal is on the employer’s reasoning and behaviour at the time of dismissal: the complaints from the other passengers first surfaced months later. Polkey involves an assessment of the chances of future dismissal, which involves the question whether there may be a fair dismissal and, if so, when. Here the EJ had assessed four weeks: within that period nothing was known of the later complaints, so they could make no difference to the result.
Observations made about the proper approach to ‘Polkey’ assessments.

Langstaff P J
[2013] UKEAT 0040 – 13 – 2410
Bailii
England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.522355

Kisoka v Ratnpinyotip (T/A Rydevale Day Nursery): EAT 11 Dec 2013

EAT Unfair Dismissal : Reasonableness of Dismissal – The Appellant contended that the EAT should lay down general guidance to the effect that an appeal panel decision must be followed by an employer in the absence of exceptional circumstances. He also contended that, if the Respondent was entitled not to follow the decision of the appeal panel in this case, he had not had an effective appeal hearing.
Held, the EAT would not place a gloss on the statutory test of reasonableness in s.98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Appellant had not been denied an effective appeal hearing. The Employment Tribunal was entitled to reach that conclusion and the conclusion overall that the Appellant’s dismissal had been reasonable. There was no error of law in that conclusion.

Singh J
[2013] UKEAT 0311 – 13 – 1112
Bailii
England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.522368

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Jobcentre Plus) v Jamil and Others: EAT 26 Nov 2013

EAT Disability Discrimination – Reasonable adjustments – C had a dormant condition of rheumatoid arthritis, which relapsed whilst she was in the employment of R. Her job involved working in a Job centre in Ealing some 1 hour and 20 minutes from home. She had childcare commitments. The added effect of her arthritis, making her slow to get moving in the morning and being fatiguing, made her repeatedly late for work. She asked for a job closer to home. The Employment Tribunal found that she had a disability, that the employer applied a PCP of requiring her to work at Ealing, and that this caused her a substantial disadvantage compared to those who did not suffer her disability. The employer had repeatedly refused a transfer to nearer her home. The ET thought that she had established a prima facie case that such a transfer would potentially be a reasonable adjustment. The employer provided no clear evidence why it had not made it. The ET however went on to say that there had been a refusal to transfer her more than 3 months prior to her ET1, although there was a policy to keep this under review; and also found that the employer had decided it did not want her to work at the branch close to home. The employer argued that this last contention was not advanced before the ET, which had decided it without hearing submissions from R, and that there was no evidence for it. This was rejected on the facts. It also argued that the refusal meant there was no continuing act/state of affairs, as the ET found; and a policy which was not itself discriminatory ((a) keeping the position under review; (b) not wanting her to work nearer home) was not intrinsically discriminatory, yet Cast v Croydon College required there to be a discriminatory policy for there to be a continuing act to bring allegations of disability discrimination with time. This was rejected; the focus should be on the law as derived from statute, and the ET judgment read as a whole made permissible findings.

Langstaff P J
[2013] UKEAT 0097 – 13 – 2611
Bailii
England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.522360

Kayani v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust: EAT 12 Dec 2013

EAT Unlawful Deduction From Wages – Construction of increment and pay protection provisions of the National Pay Scale for NHS doctors, (NHS Hospital, Medical and Dental Staff and Doctors Public Health, Medicine and the Community Health Service England and Wales terms and conditions of service (‘TCS’)).
Application for costs – grounds under r 34(a) EAT Rules 1993 not made out.

Eady QC
[2013] UKEAT 0369 – 13 – 1212
Bailii
England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.522367

Ward Brothers (Malton) Ltd v Middleton and Others: EAT 16 Oct 2013

EAT Transfer of Undertakings : Insolvency – Haulage company B was in severe financial difficulty HMCR had issued a winding-up petition. It ceased to trade on a Friday; on the following Monday the Appellants started to perform B’s major contracts, using B’s ex-employees, save for some who did not wish to accept lower terms as offered by the Appellant. Before B closed, a firm of insolvency practitioners were at B’s premises at B’s invitation. The Tribunal found that there had been a transfer of undertakings from B to the Appellant unless B was ‘under the supervision of an insolvency practitioner within Reg. 8(7) of TUPE 2006, in which case Regs 4 and 7 of TUPE did not apply and the Appellant was not required to take on B’s employees on the same terms. The Tribunal found that the insolvency practitioners were on site only to advise, had never been appointed to act and B was not under their supervision.
Held on appeal that the issue was not one of pure fact and that there needed to be a clear line; Slater v Secretary of State for Industry (2007 IRLR 928) and Key2Law v De Antiquis (2012 URLR 212) followed; they established that an appointment (formal or informal) was necessary before there could be said to be supervision by an insolvency practitioner; in the present case there had been no such appointment. Appeal dismissed.

Jeffrey Burke QC
[2013] UKEAT 0249 – 13 – 1610
Bailii
England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.522357