EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Procedural irregularity
Tribunal entitled to take Claimant’s witness statement as read, notwithstanding that two of the Respondent’s witnesses had been permitted to read their statements out loud, in circumstances where the Judge had explained that course to the Claimant and obtained her consent.
Observations on when witnesses statements need and need not be read aloud.

Judges:

Underhill P J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0127 – 10 – 0511, [2011] ICR D7, [2011] IRLR 305

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 28 August 2022; Ref: scu.426919

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal
Material finding by Employment Tribunal at paragraph 79 of their Reasons was supported by evidence. The facts of the present capability dismissal case materially different from those in Sarkar (Court of Appeal), relied on by Appellant.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0002 – 10 – 1410

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 28 August 2022; Ref: scu.426696

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Withdrawal
Costs
Whether it was open to Employment Tribunal to dismiss Claimant’s claims on withdrawal under ET rule 28. It was not on facts found. Observations on the application of r27(5) where Claimant abandoned the hearing. Appeal against withdrawal judgment allowed, together with consequential costs order.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0113 – 10 – 2408

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 28 August 2022; Ref: scu.426695

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Amendment
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Parties
Claimant in discrimination claim stated in ET1 that she wished to join as respondent the individual manager responsible for the act complained of as well as the employer but did not know his surname – When his name was given in the ET3 she applied promptly to join him but the application was refused on the basis that she was out of time.
Held
Judge wrong to refuse application on that basis: Drinkwater Sabey v Burnett followed – Order made for joinder of manager.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0447 – 10 – 1310

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 28 August 2022; Ref: scu.426697

EAT CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Construction of term
UNLAWFUL DEDUCTION FROM WAGES
On the true construction of the pay protection provisions in the Terms and Conditions for Hospital Doctors a part-time Hospital Practitioner who took a training post in a lower grade was entitled to be paid in that post at the full-time equivalent of her pay in her previous post.

Judges:

Underhill P J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0172 – 10 – 2311

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Appeal from – Barts and The London NHS Trust v Verma CA 12-Oct-2011
The doctor, originally qualified as a dentist, had achieved a contractual status as a surgeon with the Trust. When required to retrain, she complained that contrary to the NHS Terms for the employment of doctors, her pay grade had not been . .
At EAT – Barts and The London NHS Trust v Verma SC 24-Apr-2013
The parties disputed the effect of the NHS terms for employment of doctors, and in particularly the provisions as to maintenance of pay grade. The doctor had become a consultant trust grade doctor in oral surgery, but was then required to retrain . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 28 August 2022; Ref: scu.426701

EAT TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS – Consultation and other information
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs
The Employment Tribunal did not err in upholding a claim by an employee under TUPE regulation 15 in circumstances in which there were no employee representatives. Howard v Millrise Ltd [2005] IRLR 84 applied.
In light of the difficulty of the point and because neither party was aware of Millrise, costs awarded against the employers set aside

Judges:

Slade J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0217 – 10 – 3007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 28 August 2022; Ref: scu.426694

EAT UNLAWFUL DEDUCTION FROM WAGES
Construction of a contractual term as to bonus payments. No error of law in Employment Judge’s approach. Appeal dismissed.

Judges:

Peter Clark J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0143 – 10 – 2810

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.426457

EAT WORKING TIME REGULATIONS
Working Time Regulations. Rest breaks. Security guard (special case under regulation 21(b)). Whether receiving ‘an equivalent period of compensatory rest’ (regulation 24(a)). Whether not possible for objective reasons to grant such compensatory rest (regulation 24(b). Whether, if so, employer granting him appropriate protection.
Employment Tribunal found no breach of WTR since employer met the requirements of regulation 24(b). Appeal dismissed. Employer was actually meeting the requirements of regulation 24(a) but even if the EAT was wrong about that, the Tribunal’s judgment that regulation 24(b) was met, was unimpeachable.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0173 – 10 – 2211, [2011] ICR Digest 2, [2011] IRLR 100

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Working Time Regulations 1998 21(b) 24(a)

Cited by:

Appeal from – Hughes v The Corps of Commissionaires Management Ltd CA 8-Sep-2011
The employee security guard appealed against a finding that his employer had allowed rest breaks as allowed under the Regulations. He worked a continuous shift during which he was allowed to use a rest area, but he remained on call.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.426459

EAT UNLAWFUL DEDUCTION FROM WAGES
CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Written particulars
The Claimants are all government lawyers employed in the government legal service. The appeal by the MoD and cross appeal by the Claimants raised issues relating to their contractual entitlement to two distinct allowances (i.e. London Weighting and the Recruitment and Retention Allowance (RRA)) during their period of work at the MoD, on transfer to the MoD either on loan from their ‘home’ department (Ms Carr and Mr Ferguson) or permanently (Ms Shepherd).
A third issue concerned the statements of particulars of employment provided to Ms Carr and Mr Ferguson and whether they complied with sections 1-4 of the Employment Rights Act.
The ET’s decision in respect of London Weighting was upheld, but the MoD’s appeal in respect of the RRA was allowed, the EAT concluding that none of the Claimants had an entitlement to this allowance.
The appeal in relation to the statement of particulars provided to the Claimant Mr Ferguson was, in the event, adjourned for the reasons explained in the judgment.

Judges:

Cox J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0291 – 09 – 1811

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.426460

EAT Jurisdiction – (no sub-topic).

Judges:

The Honourable Lord Johnston

Citations:

EAT/592/01

Links:

EAT

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Employment

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.255450

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason.

Judges:

His Hon Judge McMullen QC

Citations:

UKEAT/659/03

Links:

EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.256678

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason.

Judges:

Sir Christopher Bellamy QC

Citations:

EAT/792/99

Links:

EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.255260

Citations:

[2001] UKEAT 1368 – 00 – 2607, [2001] UKEAT 431 – 01 – 2607

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Sivanandan v London Borough of Enfield EAT 1-May-1998
. .
See Also – Sivanandan v London Borough of Enfield and others EAT 1-Oct-1998
. .
See Also – Sivanandan v London Borough of Enfield and others EAT 1-Feb-1999
. .
See Also – Sivanandan v Enfield and others EAT 25-Apr-2001
. .
See Also – Sivanandan v Enfield and Another EAT 11-Jul-2001
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Sivanandan v London Borough of Enfield and Another EAT 26-Jul-2001
. .
See Also – Sivanandan v London Borough of Enfield and others EAT 23-Jul-2002
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal . .
Cited – Sivanandan v London Borough of Enfield and others CA 7-Oct-2002
. .
See Also – London Borough of Enfield v Sivanandan QBD 5-Apr-2004
. .
See Also – London Borough of Enfield v Sivanandan CA 20-Jan-2005
The employee first issued a claim in the employment tribunal, and then in the High Court. The defendant company argued that the tribunal proceedings were not concluded before the High Court proceedings were issued, but only later when they were . .
See Also – London Borough of Enfield v Sivanandan EAT 12-Sep-2005
EAT Practice and Procedure – Striking-out/dismissal.
EAT Practice and Procedure – Striking-out/dismissal. . .
See Also – London Borough of Enfield v Sivanandan CA 29-Jun-2006
Application for civil restraint order. . .
See Also – Sivanandan v London Borough of Enfield EAT 19-Oct-2006
EAT Practice and Procedure – Estoppel or Abuse of Process. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.204114

Citations:

[1998] UKEAT 89 – 98 – 0102

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Xerox (UK) Ltd and others v Buchanan EAT 1-Oct-1998
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.206191

Citations:

[1999] UKEAT 450 – 98 – 0102

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Sivanandan v London Borough of Enfield EAT 1-May-1998
. .
See Also – Sivanandan v London Borough of Enfield and others EAT 1-Oct-1998
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Sivanandan v Enfield and others EAT 25-Apr-2001
. .
See Also – Sivanandan v Enfield and Another EAT 11-Jul-2001
. .
See Also – Sivanandan v Enfield and others EAT 26-Jul-2001
. .
See Also – Sivanandan v London Borough of Enfield and Another EAT 26-Jul-2001
. .
See Also – Sivanandan v London Borough of Enfield and others EAT 23-Jul-2002
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal . .
See Also – Sivanandan v London Borough of Enfield and others CA 7-Oct-2002
. .
See Also – London Borough of Enfield v Sivanandan QBD 5-Apr-2004
. .
See Also – London Borough of Enfield v Sivanandan CA 20-Jan-2005
The employee first issued a claim in the employment tribunal, and then in the High Court. The defendant company argued that the tribunal proceedings were not concluded before the High Court proceedings were issued, but only later when they were . .
See Also – London Borough of Enfield v Sivanandan EAT 12-Sep-2005
EAT Practice and Procedure – Striking-out/dismissal.
EAT Practice and Procedure – Striking-out/dismissal. . .
See Also – London Borough of Enfield v Sivanandan CA 29-Jun-2006
Application for civil restraint order. . .
See Also – Sivanandan v London Borough of Enfield EAT 19-Oct-2006
EAT Practice and Procedure – Estoppel or Abuse of Process. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.204882

Citations:

[1996] UKEAT 1236 – 94 – 1804

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.208323

Citations:

[1998] UKEAT 1096 – 98 – 2011

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.206899

Citations:

[1998] UKEAT 372 – 98 – 0110

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.206843

Citations:

[1998] UKEAT 1023 – 98 – 1711

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Cerberus Software Ltd v J A Rowley EAT 14-Jul-1999
EAT Contract of Employment – Breach of Contract . .
See Also – Cerberus Software Ltd v Rowley EAT 29-Sep-1999
Where an employment contract allows the employer to dismiss without notice by the payment of salary in lieu of notice, the employer was bound by that contract and could not rely upon the employee’s duty of mitigation of damages and dismiss without . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.206871

Judges:

Morison P

Citations:

[1996] UKEAT 919 – 96 – 0111

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.208752

Citations:

[2001] UKEAT 173 – 01 – 0512

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.204627

Citations:

[1998] UKEAT 89 – 98 – 0110

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Xerox (UK) Ltd and others v Buchanan EAT 1-Feb-1998
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.206858

The claimant appealed saying that the ET had miscalculated several elements of the award following a finding of constructive unfair dismissal.

Judges:

Lindsay P J

Citations:

[2001] UKEAT 628 – 01 – 0810

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.204379

Judges:

Justice Mackay

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 412 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.194435

The Claimant, a member of the Respondent Trade Union, made claim to the Certification Officer (CO) pursuant to s.108A TULCRA that it had breached the Union rules by the instigation of disciplinary proceedings in respect of complaints of alleged disciplinary offences occurring more than 28 days before the date(s) of complaint.
The CO held that the Union rules gave it no power to instigate disciplinary proceedings in such circumstances; and set aside the sanctions imposed on the Claimant, which included expulsion from the Union for 10 years.
Allowing the Respondent’s appeal, the EAT held that on a proper construction of the Union rules it had a discretion to instigate disciplinary proceedings in respect of alleged disciplinary offences occurring more than 28 days before the date(s) of complaint.

Citations:

[2019] UKEAT 0111 – 19 – 1806

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.642736

EAT Transfer of Undertakings : Economic Technical or Organisational Reason – The Claimant was dismissed months after a TUPE transfer but, the Employment Tribunal found, for a reason connected with the transfer. They found that there was an ETO reason entailing changes in the functions of the workforce. However, they failed to determine, although it was in issue, whether one of these changes applied to the Claimant and whether, without that change, the changes were more than minimal. Appeal allowed; remitted to same Tribunal.

Judges:

Jeffrey Burke QC

Citations:

[2012] UKEAT 0157 – 12 – 0210

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.466338

EAT AGE DISCRIMINATION
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – 2002 Act
Claimant’s post as Chief Executive of NHS Primary Care Trust disappears in reorganisation – Not selected for successor post – After twelve months working in temporary positions given twelve months’ notice of dismissal – Notice given prior to formal consultation meeting in order to ensure that notice expired prior to his 50th birthday, when he would have been entitled to take early retirement, with consequent substantially increased costs to the Trust – Claims of unfair dismissal and age discrimination – Tribunal holds (a) that dismissal fair, notwithstanding non-compliance with 2002 Act procedures, because Claimant would have been dismissed anyway; and (b) that although the timing of the giving of notice was on the grounds of Claimant’s age it was justified in all the circumstances, including the costs that would have been incurred if the Trust had to fund his early retirement.
HELD:
(1) Appeal allowed on unfair dismissal – If a decision was unfair by reference to s. 98A (1), s. 98A (2) has no application.
(2) Appeal dismissed on age discrimination – Tribunal had not decided the justification issue on the basis only of the cost to the Trust but had applied the ‘cost plus’ test in Cross v British Airways [2005] IRLR 423 – It had been entitled to take into account the fact that it was only because the Claimant had been kept in employment for almost twelve months from when his job disappeared, and had then been given a further twelve months’ notice, that the chance of his reaching the age of 50 arose; and that in those circumstances his becoming entitled to take early retirement would have been a ‘windfall’ – Although the timing of the notice had meant that his first formal consultation meeting was before rather than after notice was given, in the particular circumstances of the case that fact did not prevent the giving of notice being justified.
Doubt expressed as to whether Cross v British Airways was right to hold that ‘cost alone’ could never constitute objective justification.

Judges:

Underhill P J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0489 – 09 – 1211

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Appeal from – Woodcock v Cumbria Primary Care Trust CA 22-Mar-2012
The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim of age discrimination. the claimant complained that the trust had deliberately failed to comply with a requirement to consult before declaring him to be redundant, so that his employment would . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 26 August 2022; Ref: scu.425979

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL
Strike out. Whether claim had reasonable prospects of success. Whether failure to actively pursue a claim. Employment Tribunal failed to have regard to relevant law and reached conclusions both on the issue of reasonable prospects and whether Claimant had failed to actively pursue his claim which were manifestly not open to it.
Amendment. Circumstances in which it was appropriate to allow amendment of Notice of Appeal which had been drafted by the Claimant, by means of substitution of grounds drafted by counsel instructed under ELAAS scheme. Factors to be taken into account.

Judges:

Lady Smith

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0343 – 10 – 1511, [2011] IRLR 217

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Deer v University of Oxford CA 6-Feb-2015
The claimant had previously succeeded in a claim of sex discrimination against the University, her former employer. She now appealed against rejection of her claims alleging later victimisation.
Held: Two appeals succeed, and those matters . .
Cited – Tayside Public Transportcompany Ltd (T/A Travel Dundee) v Reilly SCS 30-May-2012
The respondent bus driver had claimed unfair dismissal following an accident. The Employment Tribunal struck out his case as having no reasonable prospect of success, but the case had been re-instated by the EAT.
Held: the power given in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 26 August 2022; Ref: scu.425977

The parties disputed whether the claimant agency worker was in law the employee of the respondent.
Held: The test was whether it was necessary to infer such a contract to explain the conduct of the parties (Elias LJ). The EAT were right to include that, applying the correct test, the tribunal could not have reached a different result from the one that they did.

Judges:

Arden, Elias, Pitchford LLJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 1308, [2011] IRLR 169

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Alstom Transport v Tilson EAT 4-Dec-2007
EAT Practice and Procedure – Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity
The Employment Tribunal refused an application by the respondent employer to join two other respondents. This was made at the . .
Appeal from – Alstom Transport v Tilson EAT 11-Nov-2009
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS: Worker, employee or neither
The Employment Judge was wrong to decide a contractual document was bogus so opening the way for a finding in the Claimant’s favour that he had an . .
Cited – Dobie v Burns International Security Services (UK) Ltd CA 14-May-1984
The employee worked as a security officer for the appellant, which was in turn employed by the respondent to provide security for an airport controlled by the Merseyside City Council. The Council had the right of approval of any employee of the . .

Cited by:

Cited – F and G Cleaners v Saddington and Others EAT 16-Aug-2012
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Mitigation of loss
The Claimants worked for Respondent 1 who supplied window cleaning services under contract to a local authority. The contract was subject to a re-tendering process; . .
Considered – Burrell v Micheldever Tyre Services Ltd CA 23-May-2014
Maurice Kaye LJ considered the observations of Elias LJ in the case of Tilson v Alstom Transport and the impact of Jafri, saying: ‘However, even within the confines of the conventional approach, the Employment Appeal Tribunal can contain its . .
Cited – Way v Spectrum Property Care Ltd CA 22-Apr-2015
The appellant had been dismissed after using the company email to forward an inappropriate email in breach of the company’s policies. Later he was disciplined for making an appointment in breach of the company’s procedures. He again misused the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 26 August 2022; Ref: scu.426039

EAT AGE DISCRIMINATION
Appellant made several claims of age discrimination based on the terms of advertisements for jobs for which he did not apply – Claims held to have been rightly struck out/dismissed – Investigo v Keane followed – Reasoning of Cardiff Women’s Aid v Hartup doubted; but even if it was wrong that could not assist the Appellant – Observation that claimants who bring age discrimination claims in respect of allegedly discriminatory job advertisements in which they have no genuine interest purely in the hope of being paid off are liable to face an order for costs.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0190 – 10 – 0610

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 26 August 2022; Ref: scu.425976

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal
The Claimant, a manager, was dismissed for sending pornographic material to a more junior employee.
The Employment Tribunal erred in substituting its own view of the appropriateness of the sanction of dismissal rather than considering whether dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer in the circumstances. Finding of unfair dismissal set aside. Case remitted to a different Employment Tribunal.

Judges:

Slade J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0506 – 09 – 1908

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 26 August 2022; Ref: scu.425811

EAT WORKING TIME REGULATIONS – Holiday pay
CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Sick pay and holiday pay
The employee was entitled under his contract to be paid for leave taken on the basis of his ‘average’ working hours. In context this was basic hours plus overtime hours.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal is bound by the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Bamsey v Alban [2004] EWCA Civ 359 which relied on Employment Rights Act 1996 to hold that the normal working hours basis for determining paid leave entitlement under the Working Time Regulations 1998 (‘WTR’) was contractual hours and not contractual hours plus overtime hours.
The appeal from dismissal of the claim for the difference in pay for leave taken between basic hours and basic and average overtime hours succeeded under the Claimant’s contract and not under the WTR. The Claimant worked and was paid for two days on which he was due to take leave. He was entitled to those two days leave under the WTR. On termination of his employment he was entitled under the WTR regulation 3(9)(b) to payment in lieu of those two days. List Design Group Limited v Douglas and others EAT/0966/00 considered.

Judges:

Slade J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0014 – 10 – 1808

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 26 August 2022; Ref: scu.425810

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Application/claim
Amendment
RACE DISCRIMINATION – Continuing act
Whether necessary to plead a continuing act in form ET1 where Respondent raises a limitation point in form ET3, later dealt with as a preliminary issue at PHR, and argues no continuing act.
Employment Tribunal finding that it was, and refusal to allow Claimant to amend reversed. Continuing act issue to be determined at full Employment Tribunal hearing after evidence heard (that evidence being necessary to determine constructive dismissal issue at full hearing).

Judges:

Peter Clarke J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0313 – 10 – 2110

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 26 August 2022; Ref: scu.425812

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Review
Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke
The Employment Tribunal did not err in refusing at a review hearing to vary its decision. The new evidence would not have an effect on the decision. Observation in Meteor Parking applied: the Employment Tribunal is the better place for such issues to be determined.

Judges:

McMullen QC J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 1708 – 09 – 1207

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Daleside Nursing Home Ltd v Mathew EAT 18-Feb-2009
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Costs
Where at the heart of a claim is an explicit lie alleging racial abuse, the Employment Tribunal was in error failing to find that the Claimant acted unreasonably in . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Arrowsmith v Nottingham Trent University CA 10-Jun-2011
The claimant appealed against an order for costs made against her after rejection of her employment claim.
Daleside lays down no point of principle of general application; that where a party lies about a central allegation in the case an award . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 26 August 2022; Ref: scu.425809

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Exclusions including worker/jurisdiction.

Judges:

The Honourable Lord Johnston

Citations:

EATS/0047/03, [2003] UKEAT 0047 – 03 – 1612

Links:

EAT, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Employment

Updated: 26 August 2022; Ref: scu.381709

Citations:

[1998] UKEAT 1261 – 98 – 0211

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 26 August 2022; Ref: scu.206865

Citations:

[1993] UKEAT 185 – 91 – 2101

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 26 August 2022; Ref: scu.210411

Citations:

[1998] UKEAT 999 – 98 – 0111

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 26 August 2022; Ref: scu.206906

Citations:

[1998] UKEAT 1280 – 98 – 0411

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 26 August 2022; Ref: scu.206898

Citations:

[1997] UKEAT 491 – 97 – 2904

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 26 August 2022; Ref: scu.207443

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Polkey deduction

Judges:

His Honour Judge J Mcmullen QC

Citations:

EAT/518/02

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 26 August 2022; Ref: scu.185510

Citations:

[2001] UKEAT 0204 – 01 – 1412

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 26 August 2022; Ref: scu.204665

Citations:

[1998] UKEAT 1229 – 97 – 0210

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 26 August 2022; Ref: scu.206855

Citations:

[1998] UKEAT 980 – 98 – 0110

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 26 August 2022; Ref: scu.206849

Citations:

[1998] UKEAT 1162 – 97 – 2711

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 26 August 2022; Ref: scu.206860

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Section 15
JUSRISDICTIONAL POINTS – Extension of time: just and equitable
The employment tribunal had been bound to dismiss the claimant’s claim for discrimination arising from the claimant’s disability. The claimant had a disability which caused her to suffer from migraines caused by computer software, which the respondent unsuccessfully tried to address by use of screen magnification software. The respondent eventually moved the claimant to a paper based role and, the tribunal found, delayed unreasonably in dealing with the claimant’s grievances.
The tribunal must have applied an impermissible ‘but for’ test in finding a breach of section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 through failure to protect the claimant from stress and detriment to her wellbeing and (if they so found) for failure to implement the adjustments recommended.
If (which was unclear) the tribunal meant to uphold the allegation that changing the claimant’s role was a breach of section 15, that conclusion was inconsistent with failure of the reasonable adjustments claim and the respondent’s defence of justification ought to have succeeded.
The tribunal’s reliance on delays in finding a technical solution and in dealing with the claimant’s grievances were not capable of amounting to a breach of section 15, applying the reasoning in Dunn v Secretary of State for Justice [2019] IRLR 298.
The claimant’s cross-appeal was against the tribunal’s rejection on the facts of the claimant’s ‘reasonable adjustments’ claim under section 20 of the 2010 Act. The tribunal found that particular magnification software had been adequately considered. That finding was sound, supported by evidence and not perverse. Nor could the claimant succeed in impugning the tribunal’s conclusion by reliance on evidence that came into existence after the hearing, though before the tribunal gave its reserved decision.
The appeal therefore succeeded and the cross-appeal failed. The appeal tribunal would not remit the case but would substitute a finding that the claim under section 15 must fail. There was no basis for interfering with the tribunal’s decision to dismiss the section 20 claim

Citations:

[2019] UKEAT 0021 – 19 – 2407

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 26 August 2022; Ref: scu.642742

lEAT Working Time Regulation 1998 – detriment – Section 45A Employment Rights Act 1996
Unfair Dismissal – automatically unfair reason for dismissal – Section 101A Employment Rights Act 1996
The Claimant, who worked as a Kitchen Porter, had been denied his right to a rest break (contrary to Regulation 10 WTR and his contractual entitlement) when assigned to work for client L. When he subsequently refused to return to client L, he was first threatened with dismissal and then dismissed by the Respondent. The Claimant brought ET proceedings (relevantly) contending the threat of dismissal had amounted to an unlawful detriment, contrary to Section 45A ERA, and that he was then dismissed for a automatically unfair reason for the purposes of Section 101A ERA. He also complained that he had been wrongfully dismissed. The ET accepted that the Claimant had previously left client L’s premises because he refused to comply with a requirement that was in breach of the WTR. Proceeding on the basis that requiring the Claimant to return to client L amounted to the imposition of, or proposal to impose, a requirement in contravention of the WTR, the ET was not satisfied that the Claimant had provided sufficient evidence to establish his refusal to return to L was a refusal for the purposes of Sections 45A or 101A ERA and accordingly dismissed both of those claims. In considering the Claimant’s complaint of wrongful dismissal, however, the ET found that his reason for refusing to return to client L was due to his concern about the Head Chef (who had tried to make him stay longer on the previous shift) and because of the working arrangements in breach of the WTR. In the circumstances the ET upheld the wrongful dismissal claim, finding the Respondent had no proper basis for summarily dismissing the Claimant.
The Claimant appealed against the ET’s rejection of his detriment and dismissal claims.
Held: allowing the appeal
The ET had not erred in seeking to determine the Claimant’s reason for declining to return to client L; the protection afforded by Sections 45A and 101A ERA required that there was some explicit refusal (or proposal to refuse) to accept a requirement in contravention of the WTR. The dismissal of those claims because the Claimant had failed to establish the reason for his refusal was, however, inconsistent with the ET’s subsequent finding (in relation to the wrongful dismissal claim) that the reason was (at least in part) related to a requirement to work in contravention of the WTR. Moreover, given the ET had found that the Respondent’s conduct and decision to dismiss were materially influenced by the Claimant’s refusal to return to client L, it ought to have upheld the Section 45A detriment complaint. As for the Section 101A claim, the question was whether that refusal was the reason, or principal reason, for the dismissal. That was a question that would need to be remitted of the ET for reconsideration.

Citations:

[2019] UKEAT 0018 – 19 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 26 August 2022; Ref: scu.642761

The Claimant had relied on a number of causes of action in his ET claim, including an allegation of an automatically unfair health and safety dismissal contrary to s.100(1)(b) ERA 1996 for his having sought to undertake a workplace inspection in his capacity as a Safety Representative under the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977 (SI 1977/500).
Although the cause of action was identified in the list of issues in the ET’s reasons for its Judgement, the ET appears not to have made findings of fact relevant to the issue, nor set out the applicable law, or addressed its mind so as to reach reliable conclusions on the point. Nor is the s.100(1)(b) claim identified in the ET’s Judgment.
The ET dismissal of the Claimant’s claim for dismissal on grounds of trade union membership/activities (s.152 TULR(C)A 1992 ) is not determinative of the s.100(1)(b) claim: it is a different cause of action and different findings of fact are required. It could not therefore be said that the ET’s oversight would have made no difference to its decision.
The case is remitted back to the original tribunal to decide the s.100(1)(b) ERA 1996 claim.
However, there was no error of law in the ET’s failure to consider an allegation of breach of Reg 5 of the 1977 Regulations , since this had not been argued, pleaded or identified as a free-standing complaint in the issues agreed between the parties. It amounted to the impermissible taking of a new point on appeal and it was too late to raise it now.
Nor was there an error in the Tribunal’s failure to consider the rights and obligations under the 1977 Regulations when considering if there had been a breach of s.146 and s.152 TULR(C)A 1992 . The rights of the appellant as a safety rep under the 1977 Regulations are independent from and separate to the right to protection from trade union victimisation. The cases will be fact sensitive and case specific – it cannot be said that any breach of Reg 5 of the 1977 Regulations will necessarily also amount to trade union membership or activity victimisation. Safety Representatives are independent – both of their employer and the union, notwithstanding that it is the union’s right to appoint safety representatives. On the facts of this case, the ET’s failure to consider Reg 5 and the s.100(1)(b) ERA 1996 claim did not undermine its findings and conclusions on the s.146 and 152 TULR(C)A 1992 claims.

Citations:

[2019] UKEAT 0287 – 18 – 1508

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 26 August 2022; Ref: scu.642760

In exceptional circumstances affecting employees’ interests to a considerable extent, where paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to the Transnational Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 1999 as amended applies, provided that the employer has given a European Works Council the necessary information on its proposals and engaged in consultation it is not required to wait for an opinion from the EWC before taking and implementing its decision. Nor does the recast Transnational Information and Consultation Directive 2009/39/EC warrant reading words into TICER Regulation 19E(2) so as to require the employer to give the EWC a reasonable opportunity to provide an opinion to the national representation bodies on any proposal. The Central Arbitration Committee did not err in not so finding when determining a complaint brought by the EWC under TICER Regulation 21A(1)(d).

Judges:

Slade DBE J

Citations:

[2019] UKEAT 0194 – 18 – 3107

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 26 August 2022; Ref: scu.642745

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Freedom of movement of persons – Articles 45 TFEU and 49 TFEU – Workers – Employment in the public service – Directive 2005/36/EC – Recognition of professional qualifications – Definition of ‘regulated profession’ – Admission to a competition to recruit legal secretaries at the Cour de cassation (Belgium)

Citations:

C-298/14, [2015] EUECJ C-298/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:652

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Employment

Updated: 26 August 2022; Ref: scu.553087

Judges:

Lord Justice Pill

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 1240

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.445042

Judges:

Lady Justice Smith

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 785

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.440319

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason
Consideration of how a Tribunal should approach competing reasons for dismissal.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0530 – 09 – 2710

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425592

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Preliminary issues

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0015 – 10 – 2209

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425589

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Transfer/hearing together
Regional Employment Judge entitled to transfer cases from London South to London Central in order to be case-managed with associated cases proceeding there – No ‘right’ to have cases heard in region where Claimants employed.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0359 – 10 – 0809

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425590

EAT REDUNDANCY
Collective consultation and information – obligation on employers to set up meetings with a view to reaching agreement.
Protective award – reasons to award less than the maximum amount.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0278 – 10 – 2710

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425591

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal
CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Wrongful dismissal
Employment Tribunal found Claimant guilty of serious misconduct for which dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses; but that it did not amount to gross misconduct therefore the dismissal was unfair.
Applying s98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996, finding of unfair dismissal was reversed on appeal. However, in light of Employment Tribunal’s finding that conduct was not gross misconduct (entitling employer to summarily dismiss Claimant) his claim for notice pay, representing damages for wrongful dismissal, was upheld and compensation adjusted accordingly.

Judges:

Peter Clark J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0062 – 10 – 0710

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 98(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Adopted – Redbridge London Borough Council v Fishman EAT 1978
Unfair and wrongful dismissal are separate and distinct causes of action. Phillips J said: ‘The jurisdiction based on paragraph 6 (8) of Schedule 1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 has not got much to do with contractual rights and . .

Cited by:

Cited – Reilly v Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council SC 14-Mar-2018
Burchell case remains good law
The appellant head teacher had been dismissed for failing to disclose the fact that her partner had been convicted of a sex offence. She now appealed from rejection of her claim for unfair dismissal.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425488

Judges:

Peter Gibson, Waller, Carnwath LJJ

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1637, [2004] ICR 348

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – De Haney v Mind, Lang EAT 10-Apr-2003
EAT Unfair Dismissal – ‘This case is about whistle blowing, the treatment of an employee who makes disclosure in the public interest about wrong doing by others. ‘ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425376

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Continuity of employment
The Claimant was employed on 26 April 2008 as a teacher to cover the illness of another until the summer exams. The contract came to an end on 8 July 2008. Quite independently the permanent teacher resigned by notice given on 8 July. By an oral and then written agreement the Claimant started a permanent job with the employer on 5 September 2008 which continued until he was dismissed on 12 June 2009. On the employer’s challenge to his claim of unfair dismissal, on the ground that he did not have one year’s employment, the Employment Judge’s decision to that effect was reversed as he incorrectly applied Ford v Warwickshire to the reason for the Claimant’s absence of 7 weeks between the two contracts. The correct approach is to look at the reason for the termination of the first contract. It was not disputed that in hindsight the interval was short and temporary so the matter did not require remission.

Judges:

McMullen QC J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0199 – 10 – 0809, [2011] IRLR 463

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425023

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Worker, employee or neither
The Claimant signed a contract of employment with T.HQ. She thought it was owned by, and the trading name of, D. She had not heard of S Ltd now in liquidation which was the owner of T.HQ and of which D was a director. On the Employment Judge’s finding of unpaid wages, the order was made against T.HQ and D jointly and severally. On appeal HELD the order was wrongly made against D. The name of the Respondent was corrected to S Ltd under Employment Tribunals Act 1996 s35 and Employment Tribunal rule 10(2)(k).

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0342 – 10 – 1609

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425022

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Constructive dismissal
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs
The Employment Tribunal did not err in finding the conduct of the Respondent breached the implied term of trust and the Claimant resigned for that reason.
The employment status of the Claimant was not an issue at the Employment Tribunal and could not be raised now.
The Respondent, a solicitor, conducted himself unreasonably in failing to take steps in preparation for the hearing, in not attending and threatening costs against the Claimant. If the Claimant, a solicitor, had known he would not attend she need not have instructed counsel. Subject to submissions of the Respondent and a schedule, costs of counsel attending the hearing (but not conference and skeleton) would be awarded.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0195 – 10 – 1609

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425021

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal
REDUNDANCY – Fairness
Unfair dismissal – selection criteria for redundancy – whether criteria fair and whether employer applied those criteria fairly.

Judges:

Keith J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0145 – 10 – 1407

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425012

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Striking-out/dismissal
Preliminary issues
Issue as to whether Claimant was dismissed under s95(1)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996 for purpose of her unfair dismissal claim ought to be dealt with as a preliminary issue at a PHR, rather than at a full merits hearing. Plainly it should on the basis of the Respondent’s application for strike out under ET rule 18(7)(b).
Appeal allowed: case remitted to Employment Tribunal for PHR to take place.

Judges:

Peter Clarke J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0349 – 10 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 95(1)(a)

Employment

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425017

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Constructive dismissal
Employment Tribunal found one failure to pay wages but failed to make necessary findings on two further wages claims.
Employment Tribunal ought to have resolved those questions in order to determine whether Respondent’s failure to pay contractual wages amounted to a repudiatory breach of contract.
Further, Employment Tribunal regarded the raising of a grievance (by way of a petition by staff signed by, among others, the Claimant) as affirming the contract whereas the opposite is the case.
In these circumstances, the Claimant’s appeal was allowed and the case remitted to the same Employment Tribunal for reconsideration of the question of constructive dismissal.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0194 – 10 – 2608

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425013

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Amendment
Although the requirements for what is to be included in a claim form ET1 may be minimalist, there is still a minimum requirement to say what the case is. There must be some specific allegation of a claim within the jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunal or a reference to facts from which the nature of the claim can be reasonably and objectively discerned. In the present case the ET1 failed to identify a claim for Equal Pay.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0191 – 10 – 2409

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425018

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – 2002 Act and pre-action requirements
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke
The Employment Judge considered EADR reg 15(1)(b) and (2) relating to grievances, but not 15(1)(a) and any reasonable belief by the Claimant that his solicitor’s letter seeking reinstatement was an ongoing procedure to do with his dismissal. Towergate and Eagles v Rugged applied. Even if the Claimant in person, against counsel, did not specifically raise this, it ought to have been considered by the Employment Judge in light of the ET1. Exceptionally this new point would be allowed on appeal. Remitted to the same Employment Judge to determine it.

Judges:

McMullen QC J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0160 – 10 – 0908

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425015

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Postponement or stay
Striking-out/dismissal
Employment Tribunal wrong to refuse postponement application on medical grounds and further wrong to strike out the claims brought by the Claimant under ET rule 18(7)(c) on the basis of his failure to provide a witness statement when he had done so in compliance with the most recent ET Order (Blockbuster v James [2006] IRLR 630).

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0153 – 10 – 0209

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425020

EAT TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS
Transfer
Whether temporary cessation of operation at putative transfer date prevents relevant transfer as Employment Tribunal held. Answer: No.
Appeal allowed, case remitted for Employment Tribunal merits hearing.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0528 – 09 – 1203

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.424996

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Constructive dismissal
CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Wrongful dismissal
Appellant’s appeal to the effect that the Employment Tribunal should have found that he had been wrongfully dismissed as at 28 March 2008, and that the Respondent was in breach of contract in putting him on ‘garden leave’, dismissed. The Appellant’s claim did not include any case that he had been dismissed as at 28 March 2008, on the findings in fact, the Appellant had not been dismissed by the Respondent and, on the facts of the case, the Respondent had been entitled to put the Claimant on ‘garden leave’ on 13 March 2008.
Cross-appeal that the Employment Tribunal had erred in finding that the Respondent had wrongfully dismissed the Claimant so as to disentitle them from recovering course fees, upheld. Order pronounced by the Employment Appeal Tribunal finding the Appellant liable to repay course fees to the Respondent.

Judges:

Smith Hon

Citations:

[2010] IRLR 1016, [2010] UKEAT 0064 – 09 – 2707

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425008

EAT TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS – Consultation and other information
Seller of care home business gave some limited information to employees about impending transfer but failed to arrange for election of ‘appropriate representatives’ as required by reg. 14 of Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 and accordingly gave no information to, and did not consult with, any such representatives.
Tribunal finds breaches of regs. 13 (2) and (6), as well as reg. 14, of TUPE and orders transferor to pay 13 weeks pay, being the maximum compensation in accordance with reg. 15: but makes no award against transferee.
HELD:
(1) Tribunal’s finding of liability against transferor upheld – Contention that there was no duty to inform under reg. 13 (2) unless transferor were envisaging ‘measures’ on which it was necessary to consult under reg. 13 (6) rejected – Institution of Professional Civil Servants v Secretary of State for Defence [1987] IRLR 373 followed
(2) Wrong in principle to award maximum compensation in circumstances where some (though inadequate) information had been given and the measures requiring consultation were of very limited significance – Award of seven weeks pay substituted
(3) Tribunal was obliged by reg. 15 (9) to find transferee jointly and severally liable with transferor.

Judges:

Underhill P J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0057 – 09 – 1606, [2011] IRLR 11

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 14

Employment

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425006

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Perversity
Conduct dismissal. Employment Tribunal found dismissal unfair due to employer’s failure to carry out a reasonable investigation. Appeal based on (a) perversity; and (b) impermissible substitution of Employment Tribunal’s view for that of employer rejected.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0429 – 09 – 2005

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425002

EAT STATUTORY DISCIPLINE AND GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES – Whether applicable
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Mitigation of loss
The Respondent withdrew its objection that the Claimant had not raised a grievance in accordance with Section 32 of the Employment Act 2002 [repealed as from 6 April 2009] when the Employment Judge drew its representative’s attention to the judgment of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Arnold Clark Automobiles v Stewart and others UKEATS/0052/RM. Accordingly the Employment Tribunal did not err in not considering whether a statutory grievance could be raised in without prejudice correspondence or in not considering whether the subject matter of the Claimant’s complaint to the Employment Tribunal had been raised in such correspondence. Further the Employment Tribunal did not err in law or come to a perverse conclusion on the facts in deciding that the Claimant had not failed to mitigate his loss when he refused an offer of re-employment made almost immediately after he had been constructively dismissed. The Respondent’s appeal from the finding of unfair dismissal and the quantum of compensation was dismissed.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0469 – 09 – 2204

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.424997

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason
JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – 2002 Act and pre-action requirements
On remission of this unfair dismissal case, a second Tribunal found the reason for dismissal was loss of andpound;3000 in cash. But the evidence from the manager who dismissed the Claimant was that she believed she had stolen it. This dishonesty was never put to the Claimant and the finding of fair dismissal was set aside, applying Strouthos v LUL.
Since the Step 1 letter did not mention theft, it did not comply with the 2002 Act regime.
At the parties’ invitation the EAT found the reason for dismissal was theft and it was unfair for the above reasons. Remitted to the same Employment Tribunal to decide remedy ie Polkey and contribution.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0032 – 10 – 2807

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425007

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Mitigation of loss
Unfair dismissal – compensation – failure to take reasonable steps to mitigate loss – whether Tribunal’s finding that employee’s failure to take reasonable steps to mitigate loss was perverse.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0139 – 10 – 0607

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425009