EAT PRACTICE and PROCEDURE
APPLICATION/CLAIM
ET1 submitted with a fully pleaded case identifying two Claimants – however ET1a omitted. Employment Judge held that no valid claim presented by second Claimant – appeal allowed – principles in Hamling v Coxlease School applied; observations on procedure to be followed where Tribunal staff do not appreciate that a claim has been made – review application not necessary.

Judges:

Richardson J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0339 – 09 – 0402, [2010] IRLR 930

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Hamling v Coxlease School Ltd EAT 19-May-2006
EAT Practice and Procedure. Employment Tribunal Chairman rejecting claim form on basis that Claimant’s address not given (but Claimant’s solicitors’ name and address were given). Application for review refused by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.401655

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Bias, Misconduct And Procedural Irregularity
Costs
Employment Appeal Tribunal practice – allegations of apparent bias/procedural irregularity – EAT findings of fact as to what occurred before the Employment Tribunal. Based on those findings the Porter v Magill test of the fair-minded observer was not met in this case.
Award of andpound;10,000 costs upheld on the basis of the Employment Tribunal’s reasoning.
Lodwick v Southwark L.B. considered.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0243 – 09 – 1802

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.401654

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL: S.98A(2) ERA
The Employment Tribunal on its findings might well have considered that notwithstanding defects in the disciplinary process, that the Claimant was not unfairly dismissed because, even with a fair procedure, on the balance of probabilities, he would have been dismissed in any event. Case remitted for re-hearing before a differently constituted employment tribunal.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0317 – 09 – 2201

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.401652

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS: WORKER, EMPLOYEE OR NEITHER
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE:
PRELIMINARY ISSUES
APPELLATE JURISDICTION/REASONS/BURNS-BARKE
The Tribunal accepted jurisdiction in a case in which the employee who lived and worked mainly in England drove lorries for a company based in Northern Ireland. There was no evidence the company had an office in England. The Tribunal failed to give sufficient reasons why it concluded it had jurisdiction, and may have asked where the employee worked or was based rather than the appropriate, and different, question which was whether the employer conducted business in England and Wales. Since the decision was not plainly and obviously right, it was to be remitted.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0476 – 09 – 1401

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.396773

EAT VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION
Whistleblowing
Dismissal
On an application for interim relief under sections 128-129 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 the Employment Judge erred in law in finding that such applications should be restricted to simple factual disputes. By doing so she added a requirement that had no statutory basis. Appeal allowed and remitted for hearing before another Employment Judge. Observations on the meaning of ‘likely’ in section 129(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996: (Taplin v C. Shippam Ltd [1978] IRLR 450) approved and followed.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0364 – 09 – 1502

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.396774

EAT CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT: WRONGFUL DISMISSAL
UNFAIR DISMISSAL: CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: PERVERSITY
An employee claimed that a Tribunal was perverse to reject his claim that the employer must have been in breach of the implied term of trust and confidence in circumstances where he had refused to provide a company car of the style requested by the employee, then criticised the employee to a junior employee and others outside the company for the way he handled complaints about the car he was given, then circulated – to the same junior employee and outsiders – an ‘apology’ from the line manager who had done this, before as a last straw rejecting an appeal in respect of an internal grievance so tersely as to provide little or no reason for its rejection. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that although such conduct might often, even usually, amount to a breach of the implied term, the Tribunal here was entitled, by regard to the context, to determine the claims against the employee as it had.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0355 – 09 – 2101

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.396734

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Application/claim
Amendment
VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION
An originating application must be read as a whole to ascertain whether it contains a particular complaint. The Claimant who was black and dyslexic completed an ET1 without legal assistance. He ticked the Disability and the Race boxes in paragraph 6.1. In the particulars of complaint in Box 6.2 he referred to race discrimination but made no complaint obviously related to disability discrimination. Two further ET1s were presented by solicitors. These clearly raised complaints under the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1975. All three ET1s were considered at a CMD at which issues were identified some of which applied to the DDA as did information ordered to be provided. Reading the first ET1 as a whole applying Office of National Statistics v Ali [2005] ICR 201 paragraph 39 the ET did not err in concluding that the first ET1 did not contain a claim under the DDA.
However, the ET erred in refusing to hear and/or determine an application to amend the first ET1 to ‘re-label’ events as falling within the DDA on the basis that the application was made at a very late stage in the proceedings. This is but one of the considerations to be taken into account in determining an application to amend. Selkent Bus Co Ltd T/A Stagecoach Selkent v Moore [1996] IRLR 661 applied.
Whilst it is preferable for an ET not to introduce characteristics relevant to the reason why a Respondent took the action complained of in a victimisation claim in determining whether a Complainant has been treated less favourably than a comparator, it is not an error of law to do so: see Lord Nicolls in Chief Constable of West Yorkshire v Khan [2001] ICR 1065 at paragraph 27. Even if the ET had erred in this regard it made clear findings of fact that the reasons for the actions complained of were nothing to do with protected acts under RRA Section 2(1)(a) to (d) and would have dismissed the claims applying the preferred approach.
Appeal dismissed save in respect of the refusal of the ET to consider and determine the application to amend. Case remitted to the ET to consider the application to amend the first ET1.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0201 – 09 – 0502

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.396735

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: PERVERSITY
Perversity appeal failed on facts.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0252 – 09 – 1101

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.396729

EAT PRACTICE and PROCEDURE: APPELLATE JURISDICTION/REASONS/ BURNS-BARKE
UNFAIR DISMISSAL: COMPENSATION
PRACTICE and PROCEDURE: COSTS
Appeal in respect of the award by the Tribunal of andpound;3,000 costs, and cross-appeal in respect of the calculation of future loss of andpound;35,700 both allowed, because the Tribunal had failed to give any adequate explanation of these awards, and in particular how the figures were arrived at. A further point arose during the hearing before the Appeal Tribunal, as to which there appeared to be no authority – that is whether on remission to a Tribunal to reconsider the award in respect of future loss it should have regard to circumstances as they were at the time of making the decision appealed from, or whether it should have regard to circumstances as they will be on the date the remitted case is determined by it. It was held that the latter is the appropriate course.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0147 – 09 – 1501

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.396732

EAT STATUTORY DISCIPLINE AND GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES
Whether applicable
Whether infringed
The Employment Tribunal did not err in law in deciding (a) that a series of documents did not amount to a grievance and (b) that a grievance has to make a causal link between the treatment meted out to the Claimant and his/her disability. Canary Wharf Management Ltd v Edebi [2006] IRLR 416 applied.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0360 – 09 – 1002

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.396737

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Observations on hearing of a fresh Notice of Appeal in EAT R3(8). Requirement only for a second Notice; however (a) lodging a second Notice setting out the same or similar grounds to the original Notice is liable to be rejected as an abuse of process and (b) only one fresh Notice under R3(8) is permitted.
The Appellant was entitled to a R3(10) hearing following rejection of his second Notice under R3(8). The appeal was without merit. That R3(10) application was dismissed.

Judges:

Peter Clark J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0799 – 09 – 2001

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993 3(8)

Employment

Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.396733

The claimant had been employed through an employment agency to carry out work for the respondent. He appealed against dismissal of his appeal against a ruling that he was not a worker for the respondent under the 1996 Act. He said that the Employment judge had not given him appropriate assistance as a litigant in person.
Held: The appeal failed. As to the criticism of the judge Rimer LJ said: ‘There are . . limits to what a judge can and should do in order to assist [a litigant in person]. It is for the litigant himself to decide what case to make and how to make it, and what evidence to adduce and how to adduce it. It is not for the judge to give directions or advice on such matters. It is not his function to step into the arena on the litigant’s side and to help him to make his case . . It is not their role to engage in the sort of inquisitorial function that Mr Hopkin suggests or, therefore, to engage in an investigation as to whether further evidence might be available to one of the parties which, if adduced, might enable him to make a better case. Their function is to hear the case the parties choose to put before them, make findings as to the facts and to decide the case in accordance with the law.’

Judges:

Thorpe, Wilson, Rimer LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 25, [2010] IRLR 451

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 230(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Muschett v HM Prison Service EAT 26-Aug-2008
EAT CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT: Whether established
Tribunal Chairman correct not to imply contract between agency worker and end user. . .
Cited – Lemas and Another v Williams CA 30-Apr-2009
The court considered the extent to which a judge having conduct of a civil trial had an obligation to assist a litigant in person in the conduct of his case. Rimer LJ said: ‘Mr Lemas represented himself and, like any litigant in person, he enjoyed a . .
Cited – James v Greenwich Council EAT 18-Dec-2006
james_greenwichEAT06
EAT Contract of Employment – Definition of employee
The Appellant was supplied by an agency to carry out work for Greenwich Council. She had no express contract with the Council but she contended that there . .
Cited – James v London Borough of Greenwich CA 5-Feb-2008
The court considered whether an agency worker could be an employee of the defendant. Mummery LJ said: ‘As illustrated in the authorities, there is a wide spectrum of factual situations. Labels are not a substitute for the legal analysis of the . .
Explained – Mensah v East Hertfordshire NHS Trust CA 10-Jun-1998
An industrial tribunal should be helpful to litigants to help establish clearly whether issues which had been raised on the papers were not being pursued. An employee claiming racial discrimination but not pursuing it at the tribunal was not allowed . .

Cited by:

Cited – RSA Consulting Ltd v Evans CA 23-Jul-2010
The respondent worked as a consultant for the appellant through an intermediary agency. When the arrangement was terminated, she had made a claim alleging an unauthorised deduction from her wages in repect of a contractual period of one month’s . .
Cited – Stoke On Trent City Council v Savigar (Debarred) EAT 15-May-2015
EAT Unfair Dismissal – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity – UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Procedural fairness/automatically unfair dismissal
Though the Claimant’s complaint was that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.396484

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS
Worker, Employee or Neither
Whether by implied agreement Claimants were employed by Local Education Authority under ‘Regulation 24 Agreement’ so that they could rely on LEA comparators in equal pay claims.
Employment Tribunal finding that they were not upheld.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0386 – 09 – 2001

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.393381

EAT STATUTORY DISCIPLINE AND GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES
Whether Infringed
Impact on Compensation
Employment Tribunal erred in law in finding Claimant had complied with the statutory appeal procedure under the Employment Act 2002 but the Respondent employer was not required to make an increase in compensation under s.31(3). The Tribunal made no reference to s31(4) and it was completely unclear whether it had that provision in mind. Case remitted to the same Tribunal.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0229 – 09 – 2601

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Act 2002

Employment

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.393402

EAT Constructive dismissal
Employment Tribunal erred in (a) applying wrong test for constructive dismissal; (b) applying the wrong test for breach of the implied term of trust and confidence; (c) failed to adequately explain how the last straw doctrine applied to the facts of the case and (d) failed to explain adequately why the Claimant had not affirmed the contract.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0303 – 09 – 2501

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.393380

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Appellate jurisdiction / reasons / Burns-Barke
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
Inadequacy of reasons for Employment Tribunal findings in relation to s4(1) and (2) Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Observations on use of the Burns-Barke procedure. Late taking of new point on jurisdiction not permitted. Appeal allowed; case remitted for re-hearing by fresh Employment Tribunal.

Judges:

Peter Clark J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0340 – 08 – 2601

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.393401

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS: Fraud and illegality
On appeal the Respondent employer had contended that the Employment Tribunal erred in that it failed so to hold in circumstances where the Claimant Chinese national:
(1) after graduation worked full time for it while she was on a student visa; and
(2) worked for a lower salary than that on her work perm it.
Since the Employment Tribunal made unchallenged findings of fact that:
(1) the Claimant was entitled to remain in the UK for a year after graduation not subject to restrictions; and
(2) the Claimant did not collude with the employer in making a false declaration of proposed salary in order to obtain a work permit, the Employment Tribunal did not err in holding that the Claimant’s contract of employment was not tainted by illegality. Hall v Wollston Hall Leisure Ltd [2004] 4 AER 787 applied. Blue Chip Trading Ltd v Helbawi UKEAT/0397/08/LA and Vakante v Governing Body of Addey and Stanhope School [2005] ICR 231 considered.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0370 – 09 – 2501

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.393382

EAT Firefighter, who was also trade union health and safety representative, claimed that, having made a protected disclosure, he had suffered a detriment (section 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996) and been refused permission as a health and safety representative to take time off for the performance of health and safety functions. Claim dismissed. Perversity appeal not upheld.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0022 – 09 – 0311

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 44

Employment

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.393334

EAT ET1, presented on the last day before time bar, stated a claim for unfair dismissal. Date of termination of employment specified but not start date. Employment Tribunal rejected claim and refused review. Appeal upheld. Tribunal ought to have accepted the claim; it was not open to it to conclude that it was clear that it did not have power to consider the claim. Also, it could be inferred that claimant’s position was that he had been employed for at least the qualifying period.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0023 – 09 – 2710

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.393332

EAT Equal pay. Expenses of four days of preliminary hearing to determine s.1(6) issue awarded to claimants. Circumstances in which award set aside by Employment Appeal Tribunal.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0062 – 08 – 0610

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.393331

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 implied contract of employment. That ground was expressly eschewed by his counsel and the ’employer’ had no opportunity to address the point. The judgment was set aside as the intention of the parties was that there was no employment relationship.

Judges:

McMullen QC J

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0358 – 09 – 1111

Links:

Bailii

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 . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Tilson v Alstom Transport CA 19-Nov-2010
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.393333

EAT Tribunal found claimant, a security guard, to have been unfairly dismissed where he was dismissed for misconduct consisting of (a) writing a letter to respondents in which he unjustifiably alleged impropriety and dishonesty on the part of a director and (b) failing to follow reasonable instructions to attend for work at a new site. Tribunal found that the instruction to attend for work was unreasonable because employers had failed to consider what would be the effect on the claimant of being required to travel further and work night shift and therefore the dismissal was unfair. Claimant had previously worked in same location and there were no difficulties in him being able to work night shift. On appeal, Tribunal found to have substituted its own view for that of the reasonable employer, on no basis in the evidence. Further, it had failed to have regard to the effect of part (a) of the claimant’s misconduct and had wrongly included a sum in respect of pay in lieu of notice in the award of compensation. In other respects the award was ill – founded and the reduction for the claimant’s own contribution seemed to be inadequate. There being sufficient clear findings of fact which demonstrated that no reasonable Tribunal could have found the dismissal to be unfair, a finding of fair dismissal was substituted.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0013 – 09 – 1808

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.393330

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS: 2002 Act and pre-action requirements
The Employment Tribunal failed correctly to apply regulation 15(2) of the Employment Act 2002 Regulations 2004. Had it done so, it would have given the Claimant the benefit of the three-month extension and found the claim was presented in time. Full hearing at the Employment Tribunal ordered.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0299 – 09 – 1311

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.393336

EAT TUPE. Whether claimants who resigned asserting unfair constructive dismissal could direct their claims against a company to which the business of their employers transferred some 10 months later in circumstances where no transfer was in contemplation at the time of resignation.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0005 – 09 – 0411

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.393335

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL
Reasonableness of dismissal
S.98A(2) ERA
An Employment Tribunal erred when it substituted its view for that of management conducting a redundancy selection exercise. It was not for the Employment Tribunal to decide the management were wrong in law to add one person whose job was redundant into the pool, and in the award of points to him, the Claimant and others. Since the Claimant did not challenge the criteria, and these included subjective assessment by managers, the award of points could not be faulted as a question of law.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0316 – 09 – 0312

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.393339

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS
Working outside the jurisdiction
Respondent’s appeal against ET judgment that there was jurisdiction to determine Claimant’s unfair dismissal claim. Post the Lawson v Serco analysis, and considering Hunt v United Airlines this appeal raised the question of an employee absent from work at the time of dismissal because he was suspended or on garden leave. ET judge was held to have misdirected herself on the test to be applied. Appeal allowed and matter remitted to be re-determined.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0271 – 09 – 1901

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.392996

EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
JURISDICTIONAL POINTS
Continuing act, appropriateness of determining continuing act at a pre-hearing review
2002 Act and pre-action requirements
The Employment Judge was entitled to find on the material before him at a Pre-Hearing Review that some grievances were not extant. The Employment Judge was entitled to determine the continuing act point at a Pre-Hearing Review. The comments of Elias J in Canary Wharf Management Ltd v Edebi [2006] IRLR 416 are not dicta but part of the ratio of the case. In any event they should be followed by the EAT.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0498 – 08 – 1901

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.392995

EAT WORKING TIME REGULATIONS
Holiday Pay
Entitlement to minimum paid holiday leave can be subject to fairly operated statutory or contractual notice requirements to an employer.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0081 – 09 – 1801

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.392917

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Case management
An appeal brought by the Claimant (a Muslim) against the ET’s refusal of his application to adjourn the hearing of his claims part-heard on the third day of the hearing. This was his third application to adjourn the hearing and the first application to raise, as a ground for adjournment, the requirements of Ramadan, their effects upon him, and the need to adjourn in order to accommodate them. Application to call as fresh evidence expert opinion on religious observance and requirements during Ramadan refused in the circumstances. The ET’s discretionary decision to refuse the application to adjourn, and then to continue to hear the case in the Claimant’s absence, after he left the Tribunal, was held to have been arrived at after carefully balancing all the relevant factors in an unusual case, and not to violate the Claimant’s rights under Article 6 ECHR. Judgment upheld.

Judges:

Cox J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0134 – 09 – 1401

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.392853

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL: Constructive dismissal
The Claimant was employed by the Respondent in a position involving child protection. He failed to comply with procedures laid down by the Respondent and the Respondent therefore laid down certain performance requirements which the Employment Tribunal considered were put in place to ensure the Claimant’s further compliance with proper procedures. In those circumstances the EAT reversed the finding of the majority of the Employment Tribunal that the imposition of those performance requirements amounted to a disciplinary sanction and constituted a repudiatory breach of contract.
The EAT also allowed the Respondent’s appeal against the finding by the majority of the Employment Tribunal that it was in repudiatory breach of contract by not complying strictly with a grievance procedure.

Judges:

Serota QC J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0553 – 08 – 0701

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.392835

Post employment restrictions.

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 2736 (QB), [2002] IRLR 867

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.347825

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Admissibility of evidence / Chairman alone

Employment Judge ruling, in advance of substantive hearing, on admissibility of certain evidence. Illogical distinction within the evidence – lack of reasoning. Ruling below varied pursuant to s35(1) ETA 1996. Power in Employment Judge alone to rule on private hearing under rule 16(1) Employment Tribunal Rules.

Citations:

[2008] UKEAT 0262 – 08 – 2306

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.270721

Judges:

Wicox HHJ

Citations:

[2000] UKEAT 245 – 00 – 1606

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Lana v Positive Action Training In Housing (London) Ltd EAT 15-Mar-2001
EAT Sex Discrimination – Direct . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.265251

‘The purpose of this hearing is for us to consider whether or not the appeal raises any reasonably arguable points of law.’

Judges:

Charles J

Citations:

[1999] UKEAT 465 – 99 – 2709

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – ICTS (UK) Ltd v Tchoula EAT 15-Feb-2000
Directions for appeal hearing . .
See Also – ICTS (UK) Ltd, B Tchoula v B Tchoula, ICTS (UK) Ltd EAT 4-May-2000
EAT Race Discrimination – Injury to Feelings . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.205649

Citations:

[2001] UKEAT 1056 – 00 – 1412

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.204604

EAT Contract of Employment – Breach of Contract

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Holland

Citations:

EAT/0030/01, [2002] UKEAT 30 – 01 – 1802

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Grant v Kent County Council EAT 11-May-2001
Preliminary hearing. . .
See Also – Grant v Kent County Council EAT 1-May-2003
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for dismissal . .
See Also – Grant v Kent County Council EAT 3-Apr-2000
Interlocutory and preliminary hearing – complaint of unfair dismissal and breach of contract. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Grant v Kent County Council EAT 11-May-2001
Preliminary hearing. . .
See Also – Grant v Kent County Council EAT 1-May-2003
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for dismissal . .
See Also – Grant v Kent County Council CA 9-Dec-2003
Renewed application for permission to appeal.
Held: Remitted . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.202501

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 637

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.217101

Enforceability of illegal contract of employment – overstaying immigrant

Judges:

Underhill, Davis, Nicola Davies LJJ

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Civ 1393, [2019] WLR(D) 444

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.640103

(Mauritius)

Citations:

[2018] UKPC 33

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Employment

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.631406

Citations:

[2015] EWCA Civ 1217

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.558043

The company appealed against a decision that the claimant, a lap dancer at their premises, had been an employee. She performed for the entertainment of guests at the respondents’ clubs. She paid the respondent a fee for each night worked. Doing so enabled her to earn substantial payments from the guests for whom she danced. She negotiated those payments with the guests. The respondent ended its working relationship with her and she complained of unfair dismissal. At a preliminary hearing, an ET held that there was no contract of employment. The EAT disagreed.
Held: On these facts the employment tribunal had been entitled to find that the claimant was not employed under a contract of employment (either for each engagement or on a continuous basis).
Elias LJ said, after discussing the Cheng Yuen case: ‘The club did not employ the dancer to dance; rather she paid them to be provided with an opportunity to earn money by dancing for the clients. The fact that the appellant also derived profits from selling food and drink to the clients does not alter that fact. That is not to say that Cheng provides a complete analogy; I accept Mr Hendy’s submission that the relationship of the claimant to the club is more integrated than [that of] the caddie with the golf club. It is not simply a licence to work on the premises. But in its essence the tripartite relationship is similar.
The fact that the dancer took the economic risk is also a very powerful pointer against the contract being a contract of employment. Indeed, it is the basis of the economic reality test, described above. It is not necessary to go so far as to accept the submission of Mr Linden that absent an obligation on the employer to pay a wage … the relationship can never as a matter of law constitute a contract of employment. But it would, I think, be an unusual case where a contract of service is found to exist when the worker takes the economic risk and is paid exclusively by third parties. On any view, the Tribunal was entitled to find that the lack of any obligation to pay did preclude the establishment of such a contract here.’

Judges:

Ward, Elias, Pitchford LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 1735, [2013] IRLR 99

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Quashie v Stringfellows Restaurants Ltd EAT 26-Apr-2012
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS
Worker, Employee
Illegality
The Employment Judge erred in her conclusion that the Claimant was not an employee on each night she performed work and in the intervening . .
See Also – Quashie v Stringfellow Restaurants Ltd EAT 5-Jul-2011
EAT Unfair Dismissal . .
Cited – Yuen v The Royal Hong Kong Golf Club PC 28-Jul-1997
(Hong Kong) The applicant was dismissed as a golf caddie after nine years. The Club denied that he had ever been an employee. He was issued by the club with a number, a uniform and a locker. Caddying work was allocated to available caddies in strict . .

Cited by:

Cited – Uber Bv and Others v Aslam and Others CA 19-Dec-2018
Uber drivers are workers
The claimant Uber drivers sought the status of workers, allowing them to claim the associated statutory employment benefits. The company now appealed from a finding that they were workers.
Held: The appeal failed (Underhill LJ dissenting) The . .
Distinguished – Uber Bv and Others v Aslam and Others SC 19-Feb-2021
Smartphone App Contractors did so as Workers
The court was asked whether the employment tribunal was entitled to find that drivers whose work was arranged through Uber’s smartphone application work for Uber under workers’ contracts and so qualify for the national minimum wage, paid annual . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.467632

EAT Unfair Dismissal

Judges:

McMullen QC J

Citations:

[2011] UKEAT 1861 – 10 – 0507

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Quashie v Stringfellows Restaurants Ltd EAT 26-Apr-2012
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS
Worker, Employee
Illegality
The Employment Judge erred in her conclusion that the Claimant was not an employee on each night she performed work and in the intervening . .
See Also – Stringfellow Restaurants Ltd v Quashie CA 21-Dec-2012
The company appealed against a decision that the claimant, a lap dancer at their premises, had been an employee. She performed for the entertainment of guests at the respondents’ clubs. She paid the respondent a fee for each night worked. Doing so . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.449400

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS
Worker, Employee
Illegality
The Employment Judge erred in her conclusion that the Claimant was not an employee on each night she performed work and in the intervening stages when she was on the rota to perform work, on holiday, and at all stages in between. The Employment Judge did not find it necessary to decide the illegality issue in the light of her finding against the Claimant and did not reach adequate conclusions given the material put forward by the Respondent. The Claimant’s claim that she was an employee was upheld and the Judge’s decision was reversed. The matter of illegality on the cross appeal succeeded and was remitted. The matter would go to a fresh three person Tribunal to determine unfair dismissal and illegality.

Judges:

McMullen QC

Citations:

[2012] UKEAT 0289 – 11 – 2604

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Quashie v Stringfellow Restaurants Ltd EAT 5-Jul-2011
EAT Unfair Dismissal . .
Cited – Yuen v The Royal Hong Kong Golf Club PC 28-Jul-1997
(Hong Kong) The applicant was dismissed as a golf caddie after nine years. The Club denied that he had ever been an employee. He was issued by the club with a number, a uniform and a locker. Caddying work was allocated to available caddies in strict . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Stringfellow Restaurants Ltd v Quashie CA 21-Dec-2012
The company appealed against a decision that the claimant, a lap dancer at their premises, had been an employee. She performed for the entertainment of guests at the respondents’ clubs. She paid the respondent a fee for each night worked. Doing so . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.454092

EAT Gross Misconduct raises a mixed question of law and fact; as a matter of law it connotes either deliberate wrongdoing or gross negligence; Wilson v Racher applied. An employment tribunal does not necessarily substitute its own judgment for that of the employer by making findings of fact as to matters not dealt with by the internal disciplinary hearing; Small v London Ambulance Service considered.
Contributory Fault
It is a misdirection in law for the employment tribunal to consider the employer’s conduct in relation to contributory fault; Parker Foundry v Slack applied.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0032 – 09 – 1712

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.392546

EAT PRACTICE and PROCEDURE
Review
This is a case in which the Claimant has emigrated to Australia. The claim was dismissed. An issue arose as to whether it was fair to the Claimant that the Respondent brought documents which had not been disclosed. By the time of the review which is the subject matter of appeal the Respondent’s witness was no longer available. The appeal was dismissed on the basis that the Employment Tribunal was acting within its discretion in refusing to revoke the original decision.

Judges:

Pugsley J

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0255 – 09 – 0408

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.392523

EAT PRACTICE and PROCEDURE
Compromise
Section 203(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (‘ERA’) deems as void provisions, which preclude a party from bringing proceedings before an Employment Tribunal, save in respect of agreements which satisfy certain specific requirements, which are set out in section 203(3) of ERA. Does that Employment Tribunal have jurisdiction to determine whether a compromise agreement is unenforceable because of misrepresentation?
The Employment Tribunal held that it did.
Held on appeal
The Employment Tribunal does have jurisdiction to determine if a compromise is unenforceable.
Eden v Humphries and Glasgow [1981] ICR 183; Larkfield of Chepstow Limited v Milne and another [1988] ICR 1 and Byrnell v British Telecommunication PLC (UKEAT/0383/04) not followed.
Henessey v Craigmyle and Company Ltd [1985] ICR 879 and Greenfield v Robinson (E.A.T/811/95) applied.

Judges:

Silber J

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0478 – 09 – 1112, Times 11-Jan-2010

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.392543

EAT Unfair Dismissal
The Appellant sought to argue that the dismissal was outside the band of reasonable responses by relying on medical evidence that neither the employer nor the Employment Tribunal had seen. Appeal dismissed.

Judges:

Birtles J

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0308 – 09 – 1311

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.392532

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL
Reasonableness of dismissal
Burden of proof neutral under s.98(4) of the Employment Rights Act. Employment Tribunal wrong to apply burden on employer, applying Burchell as originally decided before Employment Act 1980 s.6 (see Boys and Girls v McDonald).
Reasonable investigation does not require employer to gather all available evidence.
Range of reasonable responses test; Employment Tribunal substituted own view for that of employer as to appropriateness of sanction of dismissal.
Appeal allowed. Result not plainly and unarguably right or wrong. Case remitted to fresh Employment Tribunal for rehearing

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0331 – 09 – 1211

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.392535

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL: Reasonableness of Dismisal
The Appellant and a manager were involved in a fight on the shop floor. Each alleges the other started it. The Appellant was suspended. After a disciplinary process he was dismissed. The manager was suspended but only for interview purposes. At the conclusion of his interview he was reinstated. Employment Tribunal in error in regarding the investigation as within the band of reasonable responses. Case remitted to the same Tribunal.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0109 – 09 – 1911

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.392537

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL
3 ‘test’ cases of some 68 claims at the instance of university lecturers who had had changes to their contracts of employment arising from a national agreement, the Pay Framework Agreement, imposed on them by their employers. Claimants’ claim that their contracts had thereby been terminated and that in the circumstances they had been unfairly dismissed, which failing, unfairly constructively dismissed, rejected by the Employment Tribunal. On appeal, Tribunal’s judgment upheld.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0179 – 09 – 2312

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.392539

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS: Worker, employee or neither
Was the Claimant an employee? ET judgment, holding that she was not, pre-dated the decision in Neufeld. EAT held that the ET misdirected themselves on the relevance of her directorship and shareholding in the Respondent company and allowed the appeal. To be remitted for re-determination.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0226 – 08 – 1812

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.392538

EAT CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT
Implied term / variation / construction of term
Construction of bonus payment term of contract of employment, made in writing.
Applying the reasonable observer test explained by Lord Hoffmann in ICS Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society this EAT rejected the construction placed on the term by the Employment Tribunal and reversed their decision.

Judges:

Peter Clark J

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0220 – 09 – 3010

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.392529

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL: Compensation
In accordance with Employment Rights Act 1996 Section 123(7) the excess of an enhanced redundancy payment over the amount of a basic award reduces the compensatory award arrived at in accordance with Section 123(1).
The Employment Tribunal erred in deducting an enhanced redundancy payment twice. Once from loss of entitlement or potential entitlement to an enhanced redundancy payment to be included by reason of Section 123(3) in the calculation of the compensatory award, and secondly by reducing the compensatory award by that amount under Section 123(7).

Judges:

Slade J

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0275 – 09 – 2511

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 123(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.392531

EAT CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE
The obligations of an employer under reg. 14(1) of the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004 are not required to be performed within the period of three months referred to at reg. 14(3) but only as soon as reasonably practicable.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0058 – 09 – 1612

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004 14(1) 14(3)

Employment

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.392540

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Review
TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS: Consultation and other information
The Employment Judge correctly held a review when he and the Respondents were under a misapprehension as to the nature of the hearing. On review with full evidence the Employment Judge was entitled to hold that as AMICUS was recognised by the Respondent to any extent, the Claimant as an affected employee did not have the right to make the kind of complaint he did under TUPE 2006 Reg 15 as to the consultation which occurred.

Judges:

McMullen QC J

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0121 – 09 – 0809

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.392526

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL
Exclusions including worker / jurisdiction
Procedural fairness/automatically unfair dismissal
Reasonableness of dismissal
Six conjoined appeals by employees dismissed during the Gate Gourmet dispute and in respect of whom the Tribunal had found either that they were dismissed while taking part in unofficial industrial action, so that it had no jurisdiction pursuant to s.237(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, or that the dismissals were fair.
Sandhu
(1) Decision that Claimant, a union official, was dismissed while taking part in industrial action not inconsistent with the previous decision of the Tribunal that the action was unofficial
(2) Employment Judge entitled to decline a review where she was able to correct an error in the Reasons by reference to findings already made
(3) Although Claimant had initially attended the site as a trade union official to assist in resolving the dispute and would not be regarded as taking part in industrial action if that had remained his role, Tribunal entitled to find that he was no longer acting in that capacity at time of dismissal.
Singh
Same point as Sandhu (3) (above).
Mathew
Tribunal entitled to find that procedurally and substantively fair to dismiss employee who employer reasonably believed had been taking part in industrial action when he tried to return to work – Observations on application of Employment Act 2002 (Dispute Resolution) Regulations 2004 in such circumstances and the effect of Simmons v. Hoover [1977] ICR 61
Dhillon
Tribunal entitled to find that dismissal without hearing of Claimant who was absent during the industrial action without authorisation or explanation was procedurally and substantially fair: cf. Mathew (above).
Begum
Tribunal entitled to find dismissal of Claimant for two weeks unauthorised and unexplained absence fair despite mishandling of the procedures.
Sehmi
Finding that Claimant was participating in industrial action at moment that he received letter of dismissal meant that Tribunal had no jurisdiction, notwithstanding that he had not been so participating when the letter was sent.

Judges:

Underhill P J

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0264 – 08 – 1707, [2009] IRLR 807

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 237(1)

Employment

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.392521

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Striking Out/Dismissal
Claimant in partial breach of unless order. Employment Judge incorrect to split the unless order to allow one claim to proceed once a breach has been established all claims subject to the order should be struck out subject to any relief granted under the review procedure.

Judges:

Ansell J

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0305 – 09 – 2608

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.392525

EAT TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS: Consultation and other information
In regulation 13 of TUPE the ‘affected employees’ whose representatives the employer must inform and consult about a relevant transfer are those who will be or may be transferred, those whose jobs are in jeopardy by reason of the proposed transfer, and those who have internal job applications pending at the time of transfer. The definition does not extend to everyone in the workforce who might apply in the future for a vacancy in the part transferred.

Judges:

Bean J

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0043 – 09 – 1507, [2010] ICR 498, [2010] IRLR 207

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 13

Employment

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.392522

EAT CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT
The Claimants were employed by the Prison Service. They were also officials of the Prison Officers Association (‘the Respondents’).
The issue was whether the Employment Tribunal was entitled to hold that the Claimants were employees of the Prison Service as well as being at the same time employees of the Respondents.
Held:
The Employment Tribunal was entitled to reach that conclusion as:-
(a) an individual can at the same time have two jobs with two different employers provided that they are compatible with each other (Statement of Rix LJ in Viasystems (Tyneside) Limited v Thermal Transfer (Northern) Limited [2005] IRLR 983 considered);
(b) the proper test as set out in 102 Social Club and Institute Ltd v Bickerton [1977] ICR 911 at 918 was applied to the Claimants’ work with the respondents; and there was no error of law in the Employment Tribunal’s reasoning.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0405 – 09 – 1712

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.392544

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL
Constructive dismissal
SEX DISCRIMINATION
Pregnancy and discrimination
Pregnant workers are not automatically entitled to a work assessment under Regulation 16 Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 in the absence of evidence that the work involved a risk as to health and safety to the expectant mother.Emo Ai

Judges:

Ansell J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0020 – 09 – 0501, [2010] IRLR 384

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 16

Employment

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.392519

The Tribunal had considered the question of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. It heard evidence, and considered that there was no jurisdiction. This was despite the fact that, at an earlier stage, the employer had said that it would not contest the jurisdictional issue on the basis that the claim was out of time, and it was on that basis that an Employment Tribunal had made some case management directions. The employers had effectively conceded jurisdiction; that had led the Appellant to prepare for a hearing on the merits, and it had only been at the last moment that the Tribunal had, by considering jurisdiction and finding against him, deprived him of the right to be heard. The employee appealed. The tribunal is required to take of its own motion any issue of jurisdiction if it is concerned as to whether it can properly deal with the case.
Elias LJ said: ‘The first issue, therefore, is whether the Tribunal was entitled to re-open the question of jurisdiction. I have come to the clear conclusion that they were. There is plenty of authority that confirms that the time limits in the context of unfair dismissal claims go to jurisdiction, and that jurisdiction cannot be conferred on a Tribunal by agreement or waiver: see Rogers v Bodfari (Transport) Ltd [1973] IRLR 172, approved by the Court of Appeal in Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances [1973] IRLR 379). Rogers is a particularly powerful case because the point on jurisdiction was not heard until after the tribunal had considered the merits of the case. In Dedman, Lord Denning pointed out that even if an employer actively wishes to have the case heard by a tribunal, the tribunal still cannot hear it if it does not have jurisdiction . . It follows that the fact that the employers initially accepted that the tribunal had jurisdiction is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the tribunal. It seems to me clear, contrary to the view of the employment tribunal, that in May 2006 the employers had adopted the clear view that the tribunal had jurisdiction to deal with their claims. Nonetheless, even if they were purporting to abandon any opposition to jurisdiction at that time, that does not bind the tribunal. The question of jurisdiction must be taken by a tribunal if it considers that the issue is properly a live one.’ Though: ‘The tribunal in April 2008 would not, however, have been entitled to re-open the question if the Employment Tribunal in May 2006 had issued a declaration that the claim was in time. The decision would then have been a Judgment of the Tribunal within the meaning of rule 28 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure. It would have been ‘a final determination of . . a particular issue in the proceedings.’ As such, it could only have been re-opened on an application for review or on appeal. Another tribunal would not have been entitled to reopen such a determination simply because it disagreed with the conclusion.’

Judges:

Elias, Mummery, Aikens LJJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 1346, [2010] IRLR 307

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Radakovits v Abbey National Plc EAT 4-Feb-2008
EAT Jurisdictional Points
Extension of time: reasonably practicable
Extension of time: just and equitable
The Employment Tribunal was correct to require satisfaction that it had jurisdiction.

Cited by:

Cited – Molaudi v Ministry of Defence EAT 15-Apr-2011
molaudi_modEAT11
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS
The Claimant sought to bring a claim for racial discrimination against the defendant relating to events which occurred while the Claimant was a serving soldier. He had previously . .
Cited – Birmingham City Council v Abdulla and Others SC 24-Oct-2012
Former employees wished to argue that they had been discriminated against whilst employed by the Council. Being out of time for Employment Tribunal Proceedings, they sought to bring their cases in the ordinary courts. The Council now appealed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.384359

EAT Whether, and, if so, in what circumstances, a director and controlling shareholder of an insolvent company may recover from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry payments in respect of debts falling within section 184 of the Employment Rights Act.

Citations:

[1997] UKEAT 516 – 97 – 1201, [1998] IRLR 120, [1998] ICR 564

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 184

Employment

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.381856

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Striking-out/dismissal
Decision of Employment Tribunal not to strike out totality of Claimant’s claims, notwithstanding his non-co-operation in the obtaining of a medical report, upheld subject to one point of clarification.

Judges:

Underhill J P

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0496 – 08 – 1310

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.381852

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS
Continuity of Employment
No arguable basis for case of perversity by ET in finding that the Claimant was employed for the academic year notwithstanding the wording of a box included in her monthly claim form. Appeal dismissed with costs.

Judges:

Burton J

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0340 – 09 – 1410

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.381851

EAT CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT
Damages for breach of contract
This case proceeded on the amended Grounds of Appeal, drafted by Ms Karon Monaghan QC. The issue was whether the Employment Tribunal was correct in finding that the Claimant had failed to mitigate his loss by refusing an offer of alternative employment when the terms offered were materially different from the original contract. Remitted to a differently constituted tribunal to reconsider the issue and to make further findings.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0358 – 08 – 2409

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.381850

EAT Unlawful Deduction from Wages

Judges:

Maurice Kay J

Citations:

EAT/1287/99, [2000] UKEAT 1287 – 99 – 2007, [2000] IRLR 760

Links:

EAT, Bailii

Statutes:

Apportionment Act 1870 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 09 August 2022; Ref: scu.265455

EAT Time limits – Reasonable practicability
Appeal to the Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal out of time. Employment Tribunal ruled out the ‘reasonable practicability’ route, as a solicitor was instructed and (impliedly) the fact that the internal appeal result was only given 6 hours before the midnight expiry on 6 July was of no relevance. Fresh evidence showed that the adviser instructed by the Appellant was not a solicitor. On appeal: Ground 1 dismissed, as the Dedman line of authorities did not depend on the ‘adviser’ upon whom the Appellant relied being a solicitor. As to Ground 2, Palmer no longer applies since Regulation 15 of the 2004 Regulations, such that an internal appeal is no longer immaterial to the reasonable practicability defence, if it means there is no time left between the result of the internal appeal and the expiry of the 3 months (e.g. Theobald and Elbeltagi). Appeal allowed and remitted to consider the s.111(2) extension.

Citations:

[2007] UKEAT 0151 – 07 – 1411, [2008] ICR 613, [2008] IRLR 375

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 09 August 2022; Ref: scu.263984

EAT Practice and Procedure – Estoppel or Abuse of Process.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Richardson

Citations:

[2006] UKEAT 0688 – 05 – 1910, UKEAT/0688/05

Links:

Bailii, EAT

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
. .
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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 09 August 2022; Ref: scu.247830