Category: Employment

Firsteel Ltd v Sherwin and others: EAT 13 Dec 1993

Citations:

[1993] UKEAT 654 – 91 – 1312

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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.

Employment

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.210854

Hossain and others v Sonali Trade and Finance UK Ltd: EAT 7 Oct 2003

Citations:

[2003] UKEAT 0176 – 02 – 0710

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Hossain and others v Sonali Trade and Finance UK Ltd EAT 17-Jun-2003
. .
See Also – Hossain v Sonali Trade and Finance UK Ltd EAT 17-Jan-2003
EAT Unlawful Deduction from Wages – (no sub-topic). . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.191873

Crouch v Kidsons Impey: 1996

Citations:

[1996] IRLR 79

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Kwik Save Stores Limited v Greaves; Crees v Royal London Mutual Insurance Society Limited CA 20-Jan-1998
Women had taken extended maternity leave, but having followed the procedures, had been unable for illness to return to work on the day they had notified. The employer then asserted that the claimants had resigned. The EAT had confirm that they had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.194007

Hossain v Sonali Trade and Finance UK Ltd: EAT 17 Jan 2003

EAT Unlawful Deduction from Wages – (no sub-topic).

Citations:

[2003] EAT 176 – 02 – 1701, [2003] UKEAT 176 – 02 – 1701, EAT/176/02

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Hossain and others v Sonali Trade and Finance UK Ltd EAT 17-Jun-2003
. .
See Also – Hossain and others v Sonali Trade and Finance UK Ltd EAT 7-Oct-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.191298

Wellman Alloys Ltd v Russell: 1973

Only economic losses are recoverable following a dismissal.

Citations:

[1973] ICR 616

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Followed – Norton Tool Co Ltd v Tewson NIRC 30-Oct-1972
(National Industrial Relations Court) The court was asked to calculate damages on a dismissal, and particularly as to whether the manner of the dismissal should affect the damages.
Held: The common law rules and authorities on wrongful . .

Cited by:

Cited – Dunnachie v Kingston Upon Hull City Council; Williams v Southampton Institute; Dawson v Stonham Housing Association EAT 8-Apr-2003
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Compensation
In each case, The employee sought additional damages for non-economic loss after an unfair dismissal.
Held: The Act could be compared with the Discrimination Acts . .
Cited – Dunnachie v Kingston Upon Hull City Council CA 11-Feb-2004
Compensation for non-economic loss brought about by the manner of an unfair dismissal is, on authority and on principle, recoverable. The award of such compensation by the employment tribunal in the present case was not excessive and was adequately . .
Cited – Dunnachie v Kingston-upon-Hull City Council HL 15-Jul-2004
The claimant sought damages following his dismissal to include a sum to reflect the manner of his dismissal and the distress caused.
Held: The remarks of Lord Hoffmann in Johnson -v- Unysis were obiter. The court could not, under the section, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Damages

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.183841

H J Heinz and Co Ltd v Kendrick: 2000

Citations:

[2000] IRLR 144

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Woodlands School (Newton Stewart) Ltd v Gordon EAT 5-Oct-2001
The employer appealed against a finding of disability discrimination. The tribunal was claimed not to have taken account of the codes of practice and the need for a risk assessment.
Held: The absence of a risk assessment mean that no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.181276

Villella v MFI Furniture Centres Limited: 1999

Citations:

[1999] IRLR 468

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Briscoe v Lubrizol Limited CA 23-Apr-2002
The claimant had been employed by the respondents. Having been injured he claimed under a long-term disability scheme underwritten by insurers. They discontinued payment, and the company dismissed him. He now claimed damages for breach of contract. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.181815

Baker v Cornwall County Council: 1990

The court asked when it could infer race discrimination: ‘In these circumstances, the Tribunal has no choice but to draw an inference adverse to the respondents and find that the applicant has been discriminated against by the respondents within the meaning of section 1(1), because no satisfactory explanation justifying the treatment accorded to the applicant has been accepted by them.’

Citations:

[1990] IRLR 194

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Strathclyde Regional Council v Zafar; Zafar v Glasgow City Council HL 16-Oct-1997
The absence of any other explanation for the unfair dismissal of a black worker, does not of itself and inescapably lead to finding of race bias, or racial discrimination. He had been dismissed following complaints of sexual harassment, later found . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.180681

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Walden, Kealfreight Ltd: EAT 22 Jul 1999

Employee to show company insolvent to claim

EAT Insolvent Employer – The onus is on the applicant seeking payment for lost wages from the Secretary of state to establish that the employer company is insolvent. There must be proof of the occurring of an event falling within section 183(3)
EAT Insolvency – (no sub-topic)

Judges:

His Honour Judge Peter Clark

Citations:

EAT/905/98, [1999] UKEAT 905 – 98 – 0107, [2000] IRLR 168

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 183(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – The Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills v Coward and Another EAT 21-Jul-2011
EAT RIGHTS ON INSOLVENCY
The Employment Judge erred in law in making an award of notice pay under section 182 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 when the employer company was not insolvent as defined in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Insolvency

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.171389

Daly v BMI Healthcare Ltd (Unfair Dismissal): EAT 9 Apr 2021

UNFAIR DISMISSAL; remedy; compensation; perversity.
The Employment Tribunal found that the appellant had been unfairly dismissed. It awarded compensation on the basis that, had the respondent correctly addressed its true reason for dismissing him, the appellant would have been fairly dismissed within six months because he had become unmanageable, and this had led to a breakdown of the respondent’s trust and confidence in him. The appellant submitted that the Tribunal’s conclusion that he would have been dismissed in any event within six months was perverse, and was based upon an unwarranted assumption that he would not have heeded warnings to change his behaviour. He also submitted that the Tribunal had failed to give adequate reasons for its conclusions.
Held: The Tribunal’s conclusion that the Claimant would not have heeded warnings to change his behaviour was an inference legitimately drawn from the primary facts found by it and from its assessment of the Claimant when he gave his evidence. It was not perverse. The Tribunal also gave logical and comprehensible reasons for its conclusions which were Meek compliant.
Observed: The Tribunal had correctly recognised that the question for it in applying section 123 of the Employment Rights Act, 1996 was not whether if the respondent had conducted a further disciplinary hearing on different grounds, that hearing would have been fair, but whether if there had been a fair disciplinary hearing on such grounds, the result would have been a fair dismissal.

Citations:

[2021] UKEAT 0009 – 19 – 0904

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.661951

Tesco Stores Ltd v Element and Others (Practice and Procedure): EAT 13 Jan 2021

Tesco Stores Ltd is the Respondent to Equal Value Claims brought by approximately 9,000 Claimants. The issue in this Appeal is whether the Watford Employment Tribunal erred in law in making Orders against Tesco for the disclosure of documents and the provision of information relating to comparators. Tesco contends that the Claimants’ pleaded cases disclose no prima facie case that would warrant such Orders being made and amounted to an impermissible ‘fishing expedition’.
Held, dismissing the appeal, that the Tribunal Judge was entitled to make the orders that she did and the Claimants’ requests did not amount to an impermissible fishing expedition

Citations:

[2021] UKEAT 0228 – 20 – 1301

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.661689

Palihakkara v Robertson Bell Ltd and Another (Race Discrimination and Victimisation : Time Points): EAT 14 Apr 2021

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Amendment
RACE DISCRIMINATION AND VICTIMISATION – Time Points
The Claimant was placed by the First Respondent (an agency) on a short-time assignment with the Second Respondent. She began work on 9 October 2017. On 9 November 2017 the Second Respondent terminated the assignment. It was agreed that the Claimant would work out a week’s notice. However, on 10 November 2017 the Second Respondent required her to leave immediately. On 7 April 2018 the Claimant presented a claim against the Second Respondent (the first claim), including complaints of direct race discrimination and victimisation, relating to the events of 9 and 10 November 2017, and the handling of a subsequent grievance by it.
On 4 October 2018 the Claimant presented a claim seeking to pursue complaints against the First Respondent under the Equality Act 2010 (the second claim). She also applied to add those complaints against the First Respondent to the first claim. She relied on documents contained in the hard copy disclosure provided by the Second Respondent in relation to the first claim, in August 2018, relating to its communications with the First Respondent in connection with the termination of the assignment with it. The Employment Tribunal held that the second claim had been presented outside the primary time limit, decided that it was not just and equitable to extend time, and refused the application to amend the first claim.
Held: The Employment Tribunal had not erred in identifying that the complaints that the Claimant sought to advance against the First Respondent were not of alleged conduct extending over a period, and hence that they were presented outside of the primary time limit. The Tribunal also reached a proper decision not to extend time, which was not perverse. In particular it was entitled to take account of its finding that the Claimant had been informed about, and provided with, the documents now relied upon by her, during April and May 2018. It also properly exercised its discretion not to permit the proposed amendment of the first claim.

Citations:

[2021] UKEAT 0028 – 20 – 1404

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.661952

St Mungos Community Housing Association v Andrews (Procedure : Victimisation): EAT 21 Jan 2021

Procedure/victimisation
The Employment Tribunal erred in making findings, and upholding a victimisation claim, on the basis of a protected act that had never been pleaded: Chapman v Simon [1994] IRLR 124 CA applied. The Employment Tribunal further erred, on the specific circumstances of this case, in making adverse credibility findings of a witness, from which it was only possible to impute that the witness had been dishonest in his evidence before the Tribunal, when he had not had the opportunity to respond to any criticism of his honesty. In this case, the principle in Vogon International Ltd v The Serious Fraud Office [2004] EWCA Civ 104 applied, namely that before an ET made serious imputations or findings, the person against whom such imputations or findings might be made should have been given the proper opportunity to respond, particularly where as here, it was never clear that part of the Claimant’s case was that the witness was not being truthful.

Citations:

[2021] UKEAT 0180 – 20 – 2101

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.661688

Smith v Pimlico Plumbers Ltd: EAT 16 Dec 2020

The Appellant was refused permission to amend the Grounds of Appeal in his Discrimination Appeal on Day 2 of a three-day appeal. The consequence of refusal was that no substantive grounds remained and the appeal was dismissed.

Citations:

[2020] UKEAT 0003 – 20 – 1612

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.661673

BMI Healthcare Ltd v Shoukrey (Whistleblowing, Protected Disclosures): EAT 25 Feb 2021

The Claimant is a consultant who succeeded in some of his protected disclosure detriment claims against the Respondent, who operate a hospital, where he carried out private practice as a ‘worker’. The Claimant resigned his practising privileges with the Respondent. The Tribunal erred in law because in finding that the Claimant would suffer very substantial career long loss of private practice earnings the Tribunal (1) failed to determine the Respondent’s argument that the Claimant’s loss was not caused by the protected disclosure detriments found against it (2) made inconsistent findings as to whether there was a risk that the hospital operated by the Respondent would close in the future (3) in effect decided it was certain that the Claimant would have taken over the lucrative practice of another surgeon when he retired, failing to take account of a relevant factor, that he might not, and (4) decided that the Claimant’s future private practice earnings were limited to just over a third of what he could have earned with the Respondent because it was not ‘realistic’ to expect him to relocate, which was perverse on the basis of the limited analysis that the Tribunal gave to this issue.

Citations:

[2021] UKEAT 0366 – 19 – 2502

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.661691

Gould v St John’s Downshire Hill (Unfair Dismissal – Marriage and Civil Partnership): EAT 5 Jun 2020

UNFAIR DISMISSAL
MARRIAGE AND CIVIL PARTNERSHIP
The vicar of an evangelical Christian church, who was dismissed in August 2016, alleged that his dismissal was because of the breakdown of his marriage and that his dismissal amounted to marriage discrimination and was unfair. The Employment Tribunal found, on the evidence, that the reason for dismissal was a loss of trust and confidence in him. Although the breakdown of his marriage had contributed to the loss of trust and confidence, it was part of the background or context rather than part of the reason for dismissal: The Respondent’s concern, insofar as it related to marital breakdown, was with his behaviour in the context of that breakdown rather than a moral or religious belief that a minister whose marriage breaks down cannot continue to serve. The marriage discrimination claim therefore failed. His dismissal was also fair.
Held: although the Claimant’s discrimination claim might have succeeded if the decision to dismiss him had been significantly influenced by a belief that a minister cannot continue to serve if their marriage breaks down, or if they would not have been dismissed in the same circumstances had they not been married, the Employment Tribunal had been entitled to find as a fact that this was not what had happened. As a matter law, therefore, this was not a case of marriage discrimination. The appeal against the finding that the dismissal was fair was premised on there being an error of law in relation to the discrimination claim and it therefore also failed.

Citations:

[2020] UKEAT 0002 – 20 – 0506

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.651613

Gwynedd Council v Barratt and Another (Redundancy): EAT 3 Jun 2020

The Claimants were dismissed for redundancy following the closure of the school where they worked. They were unsuccessful in applying for positions at a new school that opened at the same location. The Tribunal held that the dismissals were unfair because of the failure to provide the Claimants with a right of appeal, the absence of consultation and because of the manner in which they were required to ‘apply for their own jobs’. The Respondent local authority appealed on the grounds that the Tribunal had erred in its approach to the assessment of fairness under s.98(4) of the 1996 Act in that it had treated guidelines as to what an employer should do in a redundancy dismissal as inflexible legal requirements; and had failed to take account of the particular limitations on the Respondent’s role in relation to recruitment at a maintained school.
Held, dismissing the appeal, that the Tribunal had not erred in its approach to fairness. Whilst some parts of the Tribunal’s judgment might be indicative of a rigid approach, a fair reading of the whole judgment reveals that it did not treat guideline cases as laying down mandatory requirements that had to be applied in every case. Whether or not the Respondent acted fairly in applying that process in the circumstances of this case was to be judged by an application of s98(4) of the 1996 Act and that is what the Tribunal did. In doing so, it did not err in its understanding of the relationship between the Respondent and the Governing Bodies of the schools as set out in the relevant regulations.

Citations:

[2020] UKEAT 0206 – 18 – 0306

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.651614

Lock International plc v Beswick: ChD 1989

Where the claimant seeks to prevent a former employee using some but not all information obtained during his employment, the employer must be specific as to the range of what is to be protected.
Hoffmann J said: ‘Some employers seem to regard competition from former employees as presumptive evidence of dishonesty. Many have great difficulty in understanding the distinction between genuine trade secrets and skill and knowledge which the employee may take away with him. In cases in which the plaintiff alleges misuse of trade secrets or confidential information concerning a manufacturing process, a lack of particularity about the precise nature of the trade secrets is usually a symptom of an attempt to prevent the employee from making legitimate use of the knowledge and skills gained in the plaintiff’s service. That symptom is particularly evident in this case. Judges dealing with ex parte applications are usually also at a disadvantage in dealing with alleged confidential knowledge of technical processes described in technical language, such as the electric circuitry in this case. It may look like magic but turn out merely to embody a principle discovered by Faraday or Ampere.’ and
‘The employee may not, after leaving his employment, make use of, in the words of Neil LJ [in Faccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler [1987] 1 Ch 117 at 136]: ‘secret processes of manufacture such as chemical formulae . . or designs or special methods of construction . . and other information which is of a sufficiently high degree of confidentiality as to amount to a trade secret.’ On the other hand, there will be a good deal of other information which an employee could not without breach of duty disclose while he was employed but which he is free to use as part of his own skill and knowledge after his employment has ceased. It is therefore of the essence of a claim against an employee for misuse of confidential information that the employer should be able to identify with particularity the trade secret or similar confidential information to which he lays claim. The terms of any injunction must also be capable of being framed in sufficient detail to enable the defendant to know exactly what information he is not free to use on behalf of his new employer.’
In the context of any application to vary or discharge a search order it is permissible for the Court to refer to the fruits of the search: ‘I agree that in deciding whether the defendants have suffered injustice as a result of the order, I should not ignore evidence which the order itself has brought to light.’ and
‘Even in cases in which the plaintiff has strong evidence that an employee has taken what is undoubtedly specific confidential information, such as a list of customers, the court must employ a graduated response. To borrow a useful concept from the jurisprudence of the European Community, there must be proportionality between the perceived threat to the plaintiff’s rights and the remedy granted. The fact that there is overwhelming evidence that the defendant has behaved wrongfully in his commercial relationships does not necessarily justify an Anton Piller order. People whose commercial morality allows them to take a list of customers with whom they were in contact when employed will not necessarily disobey an order of the court requiring them to deliver it up. Not everyone who is misusing confidential information will destroy documents in the face of a court order requiring him to preserve them.’

Judges:

Hoffmann J

Citations:

[1989] 1 WLR 1268, (1989) 16 IPR 497, [1989] 3 All ER 373

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Tchenguiz and Others v Imerman CA 29-Jul-2010
Anticipating a refusal by H to disclose assets in ancillary relief proceedings, W’s brothers wrongfully accessed H’s computers to gather information. The court was asked whether the rule in Hildebrand remained correct. W appealed against an order . .
Cited – Caterpillar Logistics Services (UK) Ltd v Huesca De Crean QBD 2-Dec-2011
The claimant sought an order to prevent the defendant, a former employee, from misusing its confidential information said to be held by her. Her contract contained no post employment restrictions but did seek to control confidential and other . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Employment

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.421365

Diggins v Condor Marine Crewing Services Ltd: CA 13 Oct 2009

The court was asked whether a seaman, who was employed on a ship but not one registered in a port in Great Britain, can in any circumstances bring a claim for unfair dismissal, and if so, whether he was entitled to do so in the particular circumstances in this case.

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 1133, [2010] IRLR 119, [2010] ICR 213

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.377531

McCalman and Another, Regina (On the Application of) v West Yorkshire Fire and Civil Defence Authority: CA 30 Jun 2000

These appeals raise questions of some general interest to Fire Brigades and those whom they employ, affecting as they do pension and other rights under the statutory pension scheme for firemen

Citations:

[2000] EWCA Civ 3034, [2001] OPLR 85

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Financial Services, Employment

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.330962

Scottish Midland Co-operative Soc Ltd v Cullion: 1997

Citations:

[1997] IRLR 261

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Mentioned – Dignity Funerals Limited v Bruce OHCS 14-Oct-2004
The employee was found to have been unfairly dismissed. The employer appealed the compensatory award which was based on his depressive illness. They said that the illness predated the dismissal.
Held: The EAT’s decision was set aside. In . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.268132

Howitt Ltd v King and others: EAT 18 Dec 2007

EAT Transfer of Undertakings: Transfer
Practice and Procedure: Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke
Relevant transfer – perversity – issue raised and not contested – not permitted to be re-opened on appeal.

Judges:

Peter Clark J

Citations:

[2007] UKEAT 0349 – 07 – 1812

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.266655

102 Social Club and Institute Ltd v Bickerton: 1977

Philips J set out the consequences of the 1971 Act: ‘Before 1971 there was perhaps a tendency to find in contracts of employment elements of a public character which would enable the court to extend to the employee the protection flowing from ‘the right to be heard’ enjoyed by the holders of an office. Since the fundamental change of the law brought about by the Industrial Relations Act 1971, which for the first time created the right of an employee not to be unfairly dismissed, the problem has arisen, which previously was not of much importance, of defining the circumstances in which an office-holder was said to be employed. Previously, it was a case of defendants seeking to deny an office-holder a right of complaint on the ground that he was party to a ‘pure contract of service’; now it is a question of defendants seeking to deny employees the right not to be unfairly dismissed on the ground that in reality they are not employees but ‘pure office-holders’.’

Judges:

Phillips J

Citations:

[1977] ICR 911

Statutes:

Industrial Relations Act 1971

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Percy v Church of Scotland Board of National Mission HL 15-Dec-2005
The claimant appealed after her claim for sex discrimination had failed. She had been dismissed from her position an associate minister of the church. The court had found that it had no jurisdiction, saying that her appointment was not an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.236483

Barretts and Baird (Wholesale) Ltd v Institution of Professional Civil Servants (IPCS): 1986

A strike by civil servants in the Ministry of Agriculture in support of a pay claim was not intended to cause damage to an abattoir which was unable to obtain the certificates necessary for exporting meat and claiming subsidies. The damage to the abattoir was neither the purpose of the strike nor the means of achieving that purpose, which was to put pressure on the government.

Judges:

Henry J

Citations:

[1986] IRLR 331

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Approved – Van Camp Chocolates Ltd v Aulesbrooks Ltd 1984
(New Zealand Court of Appeal) The plaintiffs sued for interference with their business by unlawful means, namely breach of confidence. A preliminary point of law was argued as to the nature of the intent to injure the plaintiffs necessary to . .

Cited by:

Cited – Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others (No 3) CA 18-May-2005
The principal claimants sold the rights to take photographs of their wedding to a co-claimant magazine (OK). Persons acting on behalf of the defendants took unauthorised photographs which the defendants published. The claimants had retained joint . .
Cited – Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others; similar HL 2-May-2007
In Douglas, the claimants said that the defendants had interfered with their contract to provide exclusive photographs of their wedding to a competing magazine, by arranging for a third party to infiltrate and take and sell unauthorised photographs. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Employment

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.225470

Financial Times Ltd v Bishop: EAT 25 Nov 2003

The Tribunal considered the applicability of the 1996 Act to those employed abroad after the repeal of s196: ‘In our view the repeal of section 196 (2) cannot be taken to have had the effect that employees who had or whose employment had a substantial connection with Great Britain should not be entitled to the rights conferred by the ERA and the ability to assert those rights against their employer in the Employment Tribunal. While the Court of Appeal in Paramount did not limit the relevant jurisdiction by a sufficient or a substantial connection test, it achieved that result by treating the presumption as rebutted but the operation of the broad jurisdiction thus arising as limited by a sufficient connection test upon the basis of which the courts would exercise its discretion. In our judgment, it being accepted that the presumption does not apply in full to the applicability of the rights provided by the ERA but that those rights are not to be regarded as provided to the whole world without restriction, the correct analysis in the present case, as the Employment Appeal Tribunal decided in Jackson, is that the presumption is rebutted but that there is an implied restriction of the applicability of the rights provided by the ERA to cases in which there is a sufficient or substantial connection with the United Kingdom and that there is to be found the limit for which the parties and we have been seeking 73. Such a test would involve consideration of all factors surrounding the employment, including the place of employment, the residence of the employer and the employee, and matters of that kind – but not the proper law of a contract (section 204 of the ERA). It will be for Tribunals in individual cases to consider the facts as a whole and weigh them so as to decide whether there was or was not the requisite connection with the United Kingdom.’

Judges:

His Honour Judge Burke QC

Citations:

[2003] UKEAT 0147 – 03 – 2511

Links:

Bailii, EAT

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: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.191912

Hillman v BBC Resources Ltd: EAT 30 Mar 2004

EAT Alleged failure by the ET to make appropriate findings of fact, to deal properly with issue of comparators, and to follow the process indicated in the Barton case in respect of the transfer of the burden of proof (section 63A Sex Discrimination Act 1975) – all dismissed – no order for costs.- leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Prophet

Citations:

UKEAT/0815/03, [2004] UKEAT 0815 – 03 – 3003

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Statutes:

Sex Discrimination Act 1975 63A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Hillman v BBC Resources Ltd CA 29-Nov-2004
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.197794

Camden and Islington Mental Health NHS Trust (Now Materially Succeeded By Camden and Islington Mental and Social Care Trust) v Akinmolasire: EAT 9 Oct 2003

EAT Race Discrimination – Indirect

Judges:

His Hon Judge Prophet

Citations:

EAT/332/03, [2003] EAT 0332 – 03 – 0910, [2003] UKEAT 0332 – 03 – 0910

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Akinmolasire v Camden and Islington Mental Health NHS Trust CA 6-Oct-2004
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.187572

Watts v Monmouthshire County Council and Another: 1968

The Plaintiff, a teacher had had a number of accidents at school and applied for and was granted a short service gratuity from the Ministry of Education being agreed to be permanently incapable of serving efficiently as a teacher of the appropriate kind. The employer did not give him any notice of dismissal.
Held: Under the regulations he had been entitled to three months’ notice. The teacher sued for damages, including damages in that he had not been given pay for the period of notice that would have been applicable had notice of dismissal been given. ‘Having regard to the correspondence, I now come to the question of whether there was frustration of this contract. It is quite clear, in my view, that the mere inability of the Plaintiff to perform his duties by reason of illness or accident does not in itself amount to frustration of the contract. The regulations regarding tenure clearly contemplate that, even if the teacher does become ill or suffers an accident, the contract shall continue in existence in spite of that. But as a matter of common sense it seems to me that an application for and acceptance by the plaintiff of a gratuity on the basis that he had become permanently incapable of serving efficiently as a teacher is wholly inconsistent with the continued existence of a contract by the County Council to employ him as a teacher and by him to serve the County Council as a teacher.’ After drawing attention to the Act, ‘I consider that it is plain that the whole basis of this gratuity is that the teacher has become permanently incapable of serving efficiently as a teacher. In my judgment, it is impossible for the plaintiff at the same time to accept a gratuity on the basis that he is permanently incapable of serving as a teacher and also to continue to serve as such. Having accepted this gratuity, the plaintiff was not, in my view, eligible to return to the service of the County Council. In my view the foundation of the contract was destroyed when the plaintiff accepted the gratuity and the contract then came to an end by frustration. If there is frustration, there is no need for either party to give any notice terminating the date of it. The determination is automatic.’

Judges:

Browne J

Citations:

[1968] 66 LGR 171

Statutes:

Teachers’ (Superannuation) Act 1925

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Verner, Sheppard, Ridley v Derby City Council, Norfolk County Council, St Thomas More Roman Catholic High School QBD 14-Nov-2003
The question was whether, when a teacher has applied for and accepted ill-health retirement benefit, usually a lump sum and a pension, on the ground of permanent incapacity, there exists a public law duty on his employer to dismiss the employee.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education, Employment

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.187972

United Bank Ltd v Akhtar: 1989

An employer’s express right to transfer an employee may be qualified by the obligation of mutual trust and confidence.

Citations:

[1989] IRLR 507

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Johnson v Unisys Ltd HL 23-Mar-2001
The claimant contended for a common law remedy covering the same ground as the statutory right available to him under the Employment Rights Act 1996 through the Employment Tribunal system.
Held: The statutory system for compensation for unfair . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.182113

Devon and Cornwall Police v Town (Sex Discrimination): EAT 10 Sep 2020

The Claimant was a police officer who was transferred from her Response Team to the Crime Management Hub after she became pregnant. There had been a risk assessment indicating that she could safely remain with the Response Team if certain adjustments were made but the Devon and Cornwell Police had a general policy that police officers on restricted duties would be transferred to the Hub and the risk assessment was ignored. The ET found that the police had discriminated against her (a) on grounds of pregnancy under section 18 EqA 2010 and (b) indirectly on grounds of her sex under section 19, on the basis that women were more susceptible to enforced transfer under the policy because pregnancy ( as well as ill health) would lead to the application of the policy.
The police appealed saying (a) that the relevant treatment for the purpose of section 18 was removing her from danger and was not therefore unfavourable and (b) that any ‘particular disadvantage’ under section 19 was suffered by pregnant women and not women in general.
The appeal failed on both grounds:
(a) The treatment of which the Claimant complained was not that she had been removed from danger but that she had been transferred to the Hub which she did not want and which made her ill. The ET had found as facts that this treatment was unfavourable and that it was because she was pregnant.
(b) It was not necessary for the purpose of section 19 that all women suffered from the particular disadvantage if women as a group were more likely to be subject to an enforced transfer because of the PCP

Citations:

[2020] UKEAT 0194 – 19 – 1009

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.661652

Northbay Pelagic Ltd v Anderson (Unfair Dismissal): EAT 28 Jan 2021

Unfair Dismissal
The Respondent appealed the Tribunal’s decision that the Claimant had been unfairly dismissed. The Tribunal had concluded that having regard to s. 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 the Respondents decision to dismiss fell outside the band of reasonable responses. On Appeal the Respondent argued that the Tribunal had fallen into a substitution mind-set. Held (1) that the Respondent had not adopted a substitution mind-set but in respect of one of the grounds of dismissal had failed to recognise that the Claimant who was both an employee and director of the Respondent, had participated in a meeting with fellow directors where a decision had been taken that he should not take a particular course of action and that such a decision was in law binding on him. In this situation it was not open to him to disobey the instruction notwithstanding his personal wish to do so; (2) that while there were dangers in relying on a written statement given by a witness in lieu of attending the tribunal such evidence was in principle admissible even when it had been taken by the HR consultant who conducted the disciplinary hearing. Where, as here, the statement had been taken for the purposes of another disciplinary matter the statement could not be said to transgress the ACAS Code and in any event the circumstances did not disclose any risk of unfairness; (3) that while the Tribunal’s conclusion that the outcome of the disciplinary process had been pre-determined by a senior manager of the Respondent might be thought open to doubt, in the absence of any challenge to the Tribunal’s conclusion it was not open to the EAT to disturb the Tribunal’s conclusion to that effect; and (4) that the Tribunal was entitled to reject the Respondent’s conclusion that the Claimant had breached the law in installing a covert camera in his office while he was suspended from duty.

Citations:

[2021] UKEAT 00029 – 18 – 2801

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.661685

Watkins v British Medical Associaton (Trade Union Rights): EAT 6 Apr 2021

The decision of a trade union’s Certification Officer, responding to a number of complaints about the treatment of a disciplinary complaint, was not erroneous in law. There was no error in the application of the relevant disciplinary rules, and the process was not rendered cumulatively unfair by reason of a number of matters including a possibility that a disciplinary panel had seen prejudicial material.
There was however an error of law in the Certification Officer’s assessment of a complaint about whether the treatment of another disciplinary matter was consistent with the rules of the trade union. A rule requiring that disciplinary action ‘should not be used to stifle constructive debate or deter members from seeking election’ could be engaged whether or not there was any intention for the action to have that effect.

Citations:

[2021] UKEAT 0125 – 20 – 0604

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.661712

Wilson Barca Llp and Another v Shirin (Jurisdictional and Time Points; Harassment): EAT 11 Jun 2020

JURISDICTIONAL AND TIME POINTS; HARASSMENT
In a reserved judgment on liability, the Employment Tribunal upheld four allegations of harassment on the ground of the Claimant’s age, and two allegations of harassment on the ground of her sex. Ten months later, on the first day of the remedy hearing, the Respondents contended for the first time that all six of the upheld allegations had been brought outside the statutory time limit. Although the Claimant did not respond to this point by making an application to extend time, in its reserved judgment on remedy the Employment Tribunal decided that it was just and equitable to extend time. It awarded the Claimant pounds 20,000 for injury to her feelings under the Vento guidelines before making adjustments for inflation, the Simmons v Castle uplift and interest. It also awarded pounds 5,000 aggravated damages in respect of the harassment on the ground of sex.
On appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal rejected the Respondents’ challenge to the remedy judgment on the time issue, holding that this was based on the erroneous premise that the Claimant ought to have made an application to extend time once the Respondents had raised the issue at the remedy hearing. The issues determined by the liability judgment were res judicata; the Respondents had never attempted to overturn the liability judgment. It was not, therefore, necessary for the Claimant to make an application for an extension of time as the Respondents contended. In any event, the Employment Appeal Tribunal would have upheld the Employment Tribunal’s decision to extend time in these circumstances, had it been necessary to do so.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal also rejected the Respondents’ arguments that the Employment Tribunal had been wrong in principle to make awards of compensation for injury to feelings and of aggravated damages. However, it upheld the appeal against the amount of compensation awarded. The Employment Tribunal’s reasoning was either internally inconsistent or was insufficient to explain the Tribunal’s reasons for the amount of the award. The assessment of compensation was remitted to the same panel of the Employment Tribunal for redetermination.

Citations:

[2020] UKEAT 0276 – 19 – 1106

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.651615

CW v Parliament F-124/13: ECJ 26 Mar 2015

ECJ Judgment – Civil service – Officials – Action for annulment – Article 12a of the Staff Regulations – Internal Rules for the Advisory Committee on Harassment and its Prevention in the Workplace – Article 24 of the Staff Regulations – Request for assistance – Manifest errors of assessment – None – Role and powers of the Advisory Committee on Harassment and its Prevention in the Workplace – Option for an official to approach the Committee – Action for damages

Citations:

[2015] EUECJ F-124/13

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Employment

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.545362

Garcia Mateos v Spain: ECHR 19 Feb 2013

ECHR Article 14
Discrimination
Failure to enforce a judgment acknowledging gender discrimination against a working mother: violation
Facts – In February 2003, relying on the labour regulations, the applicant asked her employer for a reduction in her working hours as she had custody of her son, who was under the six-year age-limit. When her employer refused, she brought proceedings before the Employment Tribunal, but her complaint was dismissed. In a judgment of 2007 the Constitutional Court upheld the applicant’s amparo complaint. It found that the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of sex had been breached in respect of the applicant, as her employer had prevented her from reconciling her professional life with her family life. It remitted the case to the Employment Tribunal for a new judgment. In 2007 the Tribunal dismissed the applicant’s case and she lodged a fresh amparo appeal. In 2009 the Constitutional Court found that its 2007 judgment had not been properly enforced and declared null and void the Employment Tribunal’s judgment. It decided, however, that it would not be appropriate to remit the case to the Employment Tribunal for a further decision, as in the meantime the applicant’s son had reached the age of six. It further ruled that it could not award compensation in lieu as this was not permitted by the Institutional Law on the Constitutional Court.
Law – Article 14 in conjunction with Article 6 ss 1: The State was required to enable applicants to obtain due enforcement of decisions given by the national courts. The Constitutional Court had found, in its 2009 decision, that the applicant’s right to the enforcement of its first judgment, acknowledging a violation of the non-discrimination principle, had been breached. A decision or measure in an applicant’s favour did not deprive him or her of ‘victim’ status unless the authorities had recognised, expressly or in substance, and then remedied the violation of the Convention. The violation found by the Constitutional Court had not to date been remedied in spite of two judgments by that court.
The applicant’s initial intention had not been to obtain compensation but to seek recognition of her right to reduced working hours so that she could look after her son when he was still under six. She subsequently submitted a compensation claim only because she no longer qualified for the reduction in working hours, as her child had passed the age-limit. The Constitutional Court, having refused her compensation in its decision of 2009, did not give her any indication about the possibility of taking her claim to any other administrative or judicial body. It was true that because of the child’s age at the end of the proceedings it was no longer possible to grant alternative redress for the acknowledged breach of the applicant’s right. Nor could the Court could indicate to the respondent State how redress in the context of amparo complaints should be provided. It simply observed that the protection provided by the Constitutional Court had proved ineffective. Moreover, the applicant’s claim before the Employment Tribunal regarding the refusal to grant her a reduction in working hours had not been settled on the merits, even though the two unfavourable judgments of the Employment Tribunal had been declared null and void. In addition, her amparo appeal had proved meaningless, as the Constitutional Court had considered that the law did not provide for compensation as a means of redress for a breach of a fundamental right. Accordingly, the failure to restore to the applicant her full rights had rendered illusory the protection provided through the upholding of an amparo complaint by the Constitutional Court.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 16,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
Discrimination (Article 8)

Citations:

38285/09 – Legal Summary, [2013] ECHR 395

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6-1 14

Human Rights, Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.491922

The Incorporated Trustees of the National Council on Aging (Age Concern England), Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform: Admn 24 Jul 2007

Age Concern challenged the implimentation of the European Directive as regards the prohibition of age discrimination.

Judges:

David J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 3090 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Directive of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (2000/78/EC), Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 (SI 1031 No 2006)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

At First Instance – Incorporated Trustees of The National Council For Ageing v Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform ECJ 23-Sep-2008
Europa Council Directive 2000/78/EC Article 6(1) Age discrimination – Compulsory retirement National legislation permitting employers to dismiss employees aged 65 and over if the reason of dismissal is retirement . .
At High Court – Incorporated Trustees of The National Council For Ageing v Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform ECJ 5-Mar-2009
(Third Chamber) The trustees complained that the respondent had failed to implement the Directive, in that there remained, for example, rules allowing employers to have fixed retirement ages.
Held: The complaint failed. The Directive allowed . .
See Also – Age UK, Regina (On the Application of) v Attorney General Admn 25-Sep-2009
Age UK challenged the implementation by the UK of the Directive insofar as it established a default retirement age (DRA) at 65.
Held: The claim failed. The decision to adopt a DRA was not a disproportionate way of giving effect to the social . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination, European

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.263482

London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, Regina (on the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government: Admn 18 May 2007

The Claimant, the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority sought judicial review of decisions to allow the disciplinary appeals against its disciplinary awards of dismissal. Fire fighters employed by the Authority were dismissed by the Authority following serious breaches of the Authority’s rules on outside employment.

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1176 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.253300

Forbes v Eden: 1865

A clergyman complained of a change in the doctrinal standards of the church.
Held: Since the matter concerned an eccliastical issue and not that he had been deprived of his status as a minister, the court could not intervene. Lord Justice-Clerk Inglis said that the possession of a particular status, meaning by that term the capacity to perform certain functions or to hold certain offices, is a thing which the law recognises as a patrimonial interest, and that no one could be deprived of its possession by the unlawful act of another without having a legal remedy.

Judges:

Lord Justice-Clerk Inglis

Citations:

(1865) 4 M 143

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Forbes v Eden HL 1867
Decision affirmed . .
Cited – Percy v Church of Scotland Board of National Mission HL 15-Dec-2005
The claimant appealed after her claim for sex discrimination had failed. She had been dismissed from her position an associate minister of the church. The court had found that it had no jurisdiction, saying that her appointment was not an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Ecclesiastical

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.236516

Murray v University of Edinburgh: EAT 29 Aug 2003

EAT Practice and Procedure – Application

Judges:

The Honourable Lord Johnston

Citations:

[2003] UKEAT 0020 – 03 – 2908, EATS/0020/03

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – McCarthy, Jackson, Smith v Blue Sword Construction Ltd EAT 10-Jun-2003
EAT Contract of Employment – Notice and pay in lieu . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.202324

Cavil v Barratt Homes Ltd: EAT 1 Jul 2003

Appeal by the Applicant against the Tribunal’s reserved decision, promulgated with Extended Reasons dismissing his claim for arrears of holiday pay brought against the Respondent under Regulation 14 of the 1998 Regulations.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Peter Clark

Citations:

[2003] EAT 0208 – 03 – 0107, [2003] UKEAT 0208 – 03 – 0107, EAT/0208/03

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, EAT

Statutes:

Working Time Regulations 1998 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.191700

Jenkins v Legoland Windsor Park Ltd: EAT 12 Feb 2003

The claimant who had a withered arm, took on employment with the respondent. He was given a long service award in the form of a model with a withered arm. This upset him, and he was off work for a long time with depression. He said the tribunal had failed to see the upsetting nature of the depiction which singled him out. The discrimination was not that he was shown with a withered arm, but that he was not carrying a clipboard.
Held: The tribunal ‘did not ask themselves the question as to whether the failure to depict him with a work related item, thereby highlighting his disability amounted to an act of discrimination.’ and the matter was remitted to a fresh tribunal. However the allegation of constructive dismissal was not remitted.

Citations:

[2003] EAT 1155 – 02 – 1202, [2003] UKEAT 1155 – 02 – 1202

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Jenkins v Legoland Windsor Park Ltd EAT 3-Jul-2003
EAT Disability Discrimination – Disability . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.191359

Saeed v Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust: 2000

Judges:

Gage J

Citations:

[2000] Lloyd’s Rep Med 331

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Preferred – Kramer v South Bedforshire Health Care Trust ChD 16-Oct-1995
It was for the Trust employer to decide which kind of disciplinary proceedings to institute. Absent bad faith or Wednesbury unreasonableness, the employer’s decision on categorisation was final. There can be no reason otherwise to include in the . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Dr Mohammed Saeed v Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust CA 20-Dec-2000
Where disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against an employee who might be subject to alternative contractual and professional complaints procedures, the employer must look to the contract to decide which procedure was to be followed. If the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Health Professions

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.182502

Riniker v University College London: CA 31 Mar 1999

The writ office of the High Court unjustifiably rejected a writ which the plaintiff asked to be issued and did not issue it until the limitation period had expired. The court held that it had inherent jurisdiction to direct that the writ should be treated as if it had been issued on the date when it should have been issued.

Judges:

Evans LJ

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 1156

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Riniker v University College London EAT 12-Dec-1995
. .
Appeal from – Riniker v University College London EAT 5-Feb-1997
. .
See Also – Regina v Lord Chancellor and others ex parte Riniker CA 28-Feb-1997
The applicant sought judicial review of a refusal of her request that a judgment of the Court of Appeal should not be published.
Held: The applicants complaints were not well founded. ‘Her attempt to restrain publication of the Court of Appeal . .
See Also – Riniker v University College London CA 25-Nov-1998
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Riniker v University College London EAT 23-Aug-1999
EAT Contract of Employment – Breach of Contract
EAT Contract of Employment – Breach of Contract. . .
Cited – St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council v Barnes CA 25-Oct-2006
The claimant had delivered his claim form to the court, but it was not processed until after the limitation period had expired. The defendant appealed a finding that the claimant had brought the cliam within the necessary time.
Held: The claim . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Litigation Practice, Limitation

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.146071

Hussain v Elonex Plc: CA 17 Mar 1999

The claimant appealed against a finding that he had not been unfairly dismissed. He said that the procedure adopted had been unfair, since he had not had opportunity to see the statements provided to his employer by independent witnesses of the incident under complaint.
Held: It can be enough in a disciplinary case for an employee to know the gist of the case against him and in such cases it may not infringe the principles of fairness to fail to provide the detailed evidence: ‘The question in a case of dismissal for misconduct such as this is whether there has been a fair and reasonable investigation of the alleged misconduct before a decision is made to dismiss or not to dismiss. In this case there was no contractual requirement that a particular procedure should be followed, other than it should be fair. There is no universal requirement of natural justice or general principle of law that an employee must be shown in all cases copies of witness statements obtained by an employer about the employee’s conduct. It is a matter of what is fair and reasonable in each case. ‘

Judges:

Mummery LJ

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 1009, [1999] IRLR 420

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 57(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Hussain v Elonex Plc EAT 25-Apr-1996
. .
Mentioned – Linfood Cash and Carry v Thomson EAT 1989
One employee had informed his employer that a fellow employee had stolen two books of credit notes. He refused to allow his identity to be disclosed for fear of reprisals. The Tribunal had held that the dismissal was unfair because although the . .
Cited – Louies v Coventry Hood and Seating Co EAT 1990
An employer’s dismissal procedure need not be prima facie unfair if the employee was not permitted to know the contents of statements on which the employer would rely in taking a decision to dismiss or confirm a previous dismissal. Wood J said: ‘It . .
Cited – Bentley Engineering Co Ltd v Mistry EAT 1978
In employment disciplinary proceedings, natural justice required that a man should have a chance to state his own case and to know sufficiently what was being said against him, so that he could put forward his own case properly.
Slynn J said: . .

Cited by:

Cited – A v B EAT 14-Nov-2002
The claimant worked as a residential social worker. Allegations were made against him of inappropriate behaviour with a child. The girl’s allegations varied. A criminal investigation took place but insufficient evidence was found. The investigation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.145924

Schultz v Esso Petroleum Company Limited: CA 18 Mar 1999

The complainant had been dismissed after a protracted period of sickness. He appealed but said he would submit only written submissions. Some nine months later, he claimed unfair dismissal, saying his delay in applying arose from attempts to negotiate a settlement. ‘Reasonably practicable’ meant more than just physically so capable. The surrounding circumstances could include continuing negotiations.

Citations:

Gazette 29-Sep-1999, (1999) IRLR 488, [1999] EWCA Civ 1015, [1999] 3 All ER 338, [1999] 3 All ER 338

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.145930

Hedden v Exeter Diocesan Board for Christian Care: CA 17 Feb 1999

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 799

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Hedden v Exeter Diocesan Board for Christian Care EAT 26-Jun-1998
. .

Cited by:

See Also – B Hedden v Exeter Diocesan Board for Christian Care EAT 9-Mar-2000
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for Dismissal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.145714

Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Bottrill: CA 12 Feb 1999

There is no rule of law, to suggest that a sole director and owner of majority of shareholding, could not be an employee of that company, and be entitled to a redundancy payment on the liquidation of the company. ‘If the tribunal considers that the contract is not a sham, it is likely to wish to consider next whether the contract, which may well have been labelled a contract of employment, actually gave rise to an employer/employee relationship. In this context, of the various factors usually considered relevant . . . the degree of control exercised by the company over the shareholder employee is always important. This is not the same question as that relating to whether there is a controlling shareholding. The tribunal may think it appropriate to consider whether there are directors other than or in addition to the shareholder employee and whether the constitution of the company gives that shareholder rights such that he is in reality answerable to himself and incapable of being dismissed.’

Citations:

Gazette 10-Mar-1999, Gazette 27-Jun-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 781, [1998] IRLR 120, [1999] IRLR 326, [1999] ICR 592, [1999] BCC 177

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 213

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Bottrill EAT 28-May-1998
There is no rule of law to suggest that a sole director and owner of majority of shareholding could not be an employee and entitled to redundancy payment on the liquidation of the company. ‘The higher courts have taken the view that the issue as to . .

Cited by:

Cited – Bunting and Others v Hertel (Uk) Ltd EAT 28-Jun-2001
The appellants claimed to have been unfairly dismissed. They had been owners, through a discretionary trust, of a company sold to the respondents. They claimed also to have been employees. Following the sale, they were dismissed, and they asserted . .
Cited – Venables and others v Hornby (Her Majesty’s Inspector of Taxes) HL 4-Dec-2003
The company director taxpayer had retired from his company but stayed on as an unpaid non-executive director. The trust deed for the company’s pension scheme provided for payments to be made to an employee. The director sought relief from payment of . .
Cited – Ultraframe UK Limited v Clayton, Fielding and Others ChD 3-Oct-2002
The claimants asserted infringement of their registered design rights in parts used in their double glazing and conservatory units. ‘Therefore it is possible for design right to subsist in the design of the part of the article which is not excluded . .
Cited – Smith v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry EAT 15-Oct-1999
The claimant had been sole director of a company which went into liquidation. He sought a redundancy payment from the respondent under the 1996 Act. It was refused. The tribunal had applied Buchan. It had refused to hear an argument that the . .
Cited – Nesbitt v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry EAT 10-Aug-2007
EAT Contract of Employment – definition of employee
Insolvency
The Appellants were a husband and wife who entered into contracts of employment with a company which they managed and which they between . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Company, Benefits

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.135854

National Grid Company Plc v Mayes and Others: CA 25 Feb 1999

Trustees of a pension scheme in actuarial surplus were not entitled to treat a clause requiring them to make arrangements for the surplus as allowing them to forgive their own liability to make contributions without the Trustees’ agreement or a variation.

Citations:

Times 25-Feb-1999, Gazette 03-Mar-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 761, [1999] OPLR 95, [1999] Pens LR 37, [1999] PLR 37, [2000] ICR 174

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Financial Services

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.82506

Levett v Biotrace International Plc: CA 10 Feb 1999

Where a service contract provided for the loss of share options on the cessation of employment, those options could only be forfeit if the contract was terminated lawfully by the employer. The employer could not benefit from his own unlawful act.

Citations:

Times 11-May-1999, Gazette 09-Jun-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 757, [1999] EWCA Civ 758

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.83033

Biktasheva v University of Liverpool (Equal Pay): EAT 3 Nov 2020

The Claimant brought a ‘like work’ claim in 2015. The 2015 claim was withdrawn without the Claimant, who was legally advised at the time, stating that she wished to reserve the right to bring a further claim that was the same, or substantially the same, in the future. In 2018 the Claimant brought a further like work claim in relation to the same work, naming different comparators, but not contending there was any change in the work being done by her, or her comparators, compared to the 2015 claim. The only proper conclusion was that the 2018 claim, as pleaded by the Claimant, should be struck out because it was precluded by cause of action estoppel and/or operation of Rule 52 of the ET Rules.

Citations:

[2020] UKEAT 0253 – 19 – 0311

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.661659

Noble v Box and Others (Transfer of Undertakings): EAT 29 Mar 2021

Transfer of Undertakings
The appeal is one in which no party other than the Appellant was represented. That representative, although experienced in the employment law field, is not a qualified lawyer. No authority was cited to the EAT, and the decision is one which should be treated with care.
However the EAT held that the ET erred in law in holding that, when an agreement for the transfer of a law firm became void by operation of s284 Insolvency Act 1986, there had nonetheless been a valid transfer within the meaning of the Transfer of Undertakings (Employment Protection) Regulations 2006 (‘TUPE’). The ET had not explained the legal basis for the distinction.
The ET also erred in dismissing a separate claim which was not before it and on which the Appellant had not been heard.

Citations:

[2021] UKEAT 0203 – 19 – 2903

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.661703

NGP Utilities Ltd v Dunnington (Unlawful Deduction From Wages): EAT 10 Nov 2020

The Employment Tribunal was wrong to refuse permission to the Respondent to rely on similar fact evidence in support of its contention that the Claimant mis-sold contracts and wrongly claimed commission on them. The effect of the evidence was that she had made dishonest commission claims in her previous and subsequently employment. The Employment Tribunal erred in:
(a) relying on the principle of finality in litigation, which was inapplicable;
(b) concluding that the overriding objective favoured excluding the evidence, when it did not; and
(c) not identifying a good reason for excluding relevant evidence.

Citations:

[2020] UKEAT 0315 – 19 – 1011

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.661663

Levy v 34 and Co Ltd (Practice and Prcoedure, Contract of Employment and Unlawful Deduction Wages): EAT 12 Feb 2021

An Employment Tribunal did not err by not considering an uplift under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 when making an award for an unlawful deduction from wages, where the Respondent did not have notice of the application and where the facts, on further investigation, would not have justified the uplift.

Citations:

[2021] UKEAT 0033 – 20 – 1202

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.661696

Elliott v Dorset County Council (Disability Discrimination): EAT 9 Apr 2021

The Employment Judge erred in law in the approach adopted to considering whether an admitted impairment had a substantial adverse effect on the ability of the Claimant to carry out day-to-day activities. The term ‘substantial’ is defined by Section 212 EqA 2010 as ‘more than minor or trivial’. If this statutory definition is met, on a consideration of the ordinary meaning of the words, that takes precedence over the Guidance and Code, including the reference to the ‘general understanding of disability as a limitation going beyond the normal differences in ability which may exist among people’. The tribunal has to consider whether the Claimant is affected to a more than minor or trivial extent in carrying out day-to-day activities (which may include work activities) as a result of the impairment in comparison to what the situation would be if the Claimant did not have the impairment.

Citations:

[2021] UKEAT 0197 – 20 – 0904

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.661710

T W White and Sons Ltd v White (Practice and Procedure): EAT 26 Mar 2021

There is a mandatory requirement pursuant to rule 72(1) of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013 for an employment judge to determine whether there are reasonable prospects of a judgment being varied or revoked before seeking the other party’s response and the views of the parties as to whether the matter can be determined without a hearing, potentially giving any provisional view, and deciding how the reconsideration application will be determined for the purposes of rule 72(2).
The employment judge did not err in law by refusing permission to the respondent to call expert evidence. Expert evidence can only be relied upon with the permission of the employment tribunal and should be limited to that reasonably required to resolve the issues.
In the circumstances of this case, the employment judge did not err in refusing to stay orders to prepare for the reconsideration and the remedy hearing, pending determination of the appeal.

Citations:

[2021] UKEAT 0022 – 21 – 2603

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.661707

C and Others v A and Another (Disability Discrimination and Practice and Procedure): EAT 22 May 2020

The EAT decided that where there was no evidence that demonstrated that an employee was suffering from a disability at the time the alleged act of discrimination occurred, the ET was entitled to consider evidence of disability more generally and to infer from that evidence that the disability existed at the relevant time. The E.A.T. further decided that when the EJ had to decide a question that was to a large extent a medical question, the E.A.T. should not be swift to overturn such a decision provided it was clear that all evidence relevant to the issue had been placed before the EJ and the EJ had considered the relevant material.

Citations:

[2020] UKEAT 0023 – 20 – 2205

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.661649

De Lacey v Wechseln Ltd (T/A The Andrew Hill Salon) (Ex Discrimination and Maternity Rights and Parental Leave): EAT 1 Apr 2021

The Appellant claimed that she had been discriminated against by the Respondent hair salon on the grounds of sex/maternity. She claimed that the Respondent had engaged in a course of discriminatory conduct consisting of various matters from May 2015 until she resigned and claimed constructive dismissal in January 2017. These included two particular matters in 2015 (her treatment in relation to a ‘trade test’ in May 2015, and ‘cold-shouldering’ treatment by the salon’s principal in the period from May to October 2015). The Employment Tribunal found that the Appellant had established a prima facie case of sex/maternity discrimination in relation to these two matters, but the Tribunal did not go on to decide whether they were acts of sex discrimination. This was because the Tribunal decided that there was no need to do so as any claim relating to these matters would be out of time: the Tribunal found that there had been no course of discriminatory conduct which had extended into the primary limitation period, and that it was not just and equitable to extend time for a discrimination claim.
The Tribunal also found that the Appellant had been constructively dismissed, for the purposes of a claim of unfair dismissal, by reason of a course of conduct which included the two matters and which culminated in a ‘last straw’ incident in January 2017.
The EAT found that the ET had erred in law in failing to consider whether the constructive dismissal was itself discriminatory. In order to do so, the ET should have decided (1) whether the two matters in 2015 were acts of sex/maternity discrimination and, (2) if so, whether they sufficiently influenced the constructive dismissal to mean that the constructive dismissal itself amounted to sex discrimination. The fact that the last straw was not itself discriminatory did not automatically mean that the constructive dismissal was not discriminatory. If the constructive dismissal was discriminatory, then the claim for discrimination would be in time, even though the events that rendered the constructive dismissal discriminatory were themselves outside the primary limitation period.
The case was remitted to the same Employment Tribunal to determine whether the constructive dismissal was unlawful sex discrimination.

Citations:

[2021] UKEAT 0038 – 20 – 0104

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.661709

Total Mauritius Ltd v Abdurrahman: PC 11 Nov 2015

Mauritius – The company appealed against an award of punitive damages as a severance allowance on the termination of the respondent’s employment. He was said to have competed with his employers business whilst employed by them. Gheld: The court discussed the distinction between ‘faute serieuse’ and ‘faute grave’ under Mauritian law.

Judges:

Lady Hale, Lord Wilson, Lord Hughes

Citations:

[2015] UKPC 45

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Commonwealth, Employment, Damages

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.554670

Nicholds and others v Security Industry Authority: Admn 19 Jul 2006

Application for judicial review of, in substance, the licensing criteria prepared and published by the Defendant, the Security Industry Authority. The applicants were door supervisors refused licenses for previous convictions.

Judges:

Kenneth Parker QC J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC Admin 1792, [2006] EWHC 1792 (Admin), [2007] 1 WLR 2067, [2007] ICR 1076

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Private Security Industry Act 2001, European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Security Industry Authority v Stewart and Sansara Admn 17-Oct-2007
Various parties challenged the granting and withholding of licenses to operate as door supervisors (bouncers). The SIA regulated the grant of licences, and published criteria for their grant. It had been said that the inclusing of very minor . .
Cited – Murungaru v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others CA 12-Sep-2008
The claimant was a former Kenyan minister. He had been visiting the UK for medical treatment. His visas were cancelled on the basis that his presence was not conducive to the public good. Public Interest Immunity certificates had been issued to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Licensing, Employment, Human Rights

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.263474

Crystal Palace FC (2000) Ltd v Bruce: 22 Nov 2001

Citations:

Unreported, 22-Nov-01

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Mentioned – Crystal Palace FC (2000) Ltd v Dowie QBD 14-Jun-2007
The parties had agreed a compromise on the leaving of the defendant as manager. The club now said that the agreement had been obtained by fraudulent misrepresentation. He had been released but had said he had not had contact with another London club . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.253482

Morren v Swinton and Pendlebury Borough Council: 1965

The court was asked whether the plaintiff had been an employee.
Held: ‘once the primary facts are found, then it is a pure question of law as to what is the reasonable inference based on the legal interpretation of the contract.’

Citations:

[1965] 1 WLR 576

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – H, Regina v (Interlocutory application: Disclosure) HL 28-Feb-2007
The trial judge had refused an order requested at a preparatory hearing by the defence for the disclosure of documents held by the prosecutor. The House was now asked whether a right of appeal existed against such a refusal.
Held: The practice . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.252543

Shell UK Ltd v Lostock Garage Ltd: 1976

The implication of a term into a contract does not depend on the parties’ intention, actual or presumed, but on broader considerations.
As to the requirement for certainty when implying a term into a contract, the proposed implied term must be ‘reasonably certain’ (per Sales J in Torre Asset Funding, cited by Lewison at para 6-10), a relative lack of precision in defining an implied term may not be a reason not to imply a term for a court will not shrink from deciding which side of the line a particular case falls

Judges:

Lord Denning (dissenting), Bridge LJ

Citations:

[1976] 1 WLR 1187, [1977] 1 All ER 481

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Allan Janes Llp v Johal ChD 23-Feb-2006
The claimant sought to enforce a restrictive covenant against the defendant a former assistant solicitor as to non-competition within a certain distance of the practice for a period of three years. After leaving she had sought to set up partnership . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.240038

Hawkins v Ball and Another: EAT 15 Dec 1995

Citations:

[1995] UKEAT 1289 – 95 – 1512, [1996] IRLR 258

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Distinguished – Hunwicks v Royal Mail Group Plc EAT 20-Mar-2007
EAT Time Limits – Just and equitable extension
The Tribunal had not erred in refusing to extend time on ‘just and equitable’ grounds, notwithstanding that the Appellant had not been aware of the relevant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.209583

Sharman v Sanders: 25 Jan 1853

A contract which employed one person, but anticipated that the services required might be carried out by his employees did not fall within the Truck Acts.

Citations:

[1853] 138 ER 116, [1853] EngR 156, (1853) 13 CB 166, (1853) 138 ER 1161

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Kelly v Northern Ireland Housing Executive; Loughran v Northern Ireland Housing Executive HL 29-Jul-1998
Provisions against discrimination on religious grounds in Northern Ireland, could apply to appointment of a firm to a panel of experts, where one person was designated to carry out that work. ‘it is essential, for there to be ’employment,’ that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.194281

Hossain and others v Sonali Trade and Finance UK Ltd: EAT 17 Jun 2003

Judges:

The Honourable Mr S Justice Cox Qc

Citations:

[2003] EAT 0176 – 02 – 0710

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Hossain v Sonali Trade and Finance UK Ltd EAT 17-Jan-2003
EAT Unlawful Deduction from Wages – (no sub-topic). . .

Cited by:

See Also – Hossain and others v Sonali Trade and Finance UK Ltd EAT 7-Oct-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.187236

McCarthy, Jackson, Smith v Blue Sword Construction Ltd: EAT 10 Jun 2003

EAT Contract of Employment – Notice and pay in lieu

Judges:

His Honour Judge Reid QC

Citations:

EAT/0223/03, [2003] EAT 0223 – 03 – 1407, [2003] UKEAT 0223 – 03 – 1407

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Murray v University of Edinburgh EAT 29-Aug-2003
EAT Practice and Procedure – Application . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.185281