EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION: Disability related discrimination
UNFAIR DISMISSAL: Procedural fairness/automatically unfair dismissal
JURISDICTIONAL POINTS: Claim in time and effective date of termination
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Delay in ET judgment
The Claimant brought proceedings alleging unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. In the interval between the hearing and the production of the Judgment and Reasons – though apparently after the members had agreed on the outcome – the Employment Judge accepted a post abroad and became unavailable. After six months, the lay members produced a Judgment and Reasons with the assistance of another Employment Judge. The Judgment upheld the Claimant’s claims.
Appeal allowed and claim remitted to Tribunal because:
(1) As regards disability-related discrimination, the Tribunal had explicitly not followed Malcolm, on the basis that it was not binding because it had been decided since the hearing.
(2) The Tribunal had found a breach of the claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments notwithstanding an assurance from the Judge that no such claim would be considered.
(3) The unfair dismissal claim had been decided on basis of a different termination date from that pleaded.
Observations on procedure to be followed in circumstances where a chairman becomes unable to complete the formal Judgment and Reasons.

Judges:

Underhill P J

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0031 – 09 – 0806

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.377537

EAT STATUTORY DISCIPLINE AND GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES
Whether applicable
Whether claims for redundancy payment, holiday pay and unpaid wages are justiciable in the Employment Tribunal without complying with the statutory grievance procedure. They are; the first two claims are excluded from the statutory grievance procedure by reg. 6(5) 2004 D.R. Regs; the unpaid wages (and pay in lieu of notice) claims are covered by Schedule 3 jurisdiction under the 1994 Extension Order (breach of contract claims after termination of employment). S.32 Employment Act 2002 applies only to Schedule 4 claims.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0361 – 09 – 0910

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.377310

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL
Reasonableness of Dismissal
Dismissal reasonable after a reasonable investigation.

Judges:

Ansell J

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0022 – 09 – 2708

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.377538

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS: Extension of time: just and equitable
The Employment Judge erred when he exercised discretion to allow a Sex Discrimination Act 1975 claim 19 months out of time, the prejudice to the Respondent being considerable, on the grounds amongst others that a senior lecturer in business did not know the Act applied to men, and was seeking to operate internal grievance machinery. Although a litigant in person, the Claimant had five post-graduate degrees and represented his union and the public and was at no disadvantage.
Appeal allowed, Judgment set aside and discretion exercised afresh to dismiss the claim.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0345 – 09 – 2209

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.377540

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL
S.98A(2) ERA
Polkey deduction
Contributory fault
The Employment Tribunal erred when if found procedural defects in the investigation by the Respondent of the allegations of the Claimant’s misconduct. In any event it ought to have allowed evidence and considered Employment Rights Act 1996 s 98A(2).
It wrongly awarded compensation beyond the 6 weeks it found it would take the Claimant to find work, attributing the Claimant’s loss to the Respondent’s act of dismissal when it was attributable to proceedings brought before the Crown Court and the professional regulator.

Judges:

McMullen QC J

Citations:

(2010) 114 BMLR 152, [2010] IRLR 721, [2010] ICR 1457, [2009] UKEAT 0154 – 09 – 0209

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 98A(2)

Cited by:

Appeal from – Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust v Roldan CA 13-May-2010
The employee appealed against the reversal by the EAT of her successful claim for unfair dismissal. She had been dismissed for alleged gross misconduct in disrespectful treatment of a patient. She said that investigation had been procedurally . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.377309

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal
Employee driving a school bus – Dismissed at the insistence of the local authority because of allegations of sexual abuse which he denied and in respect of which the police had declined to prosecute – Tribunal held dismissal to be fair because the employer had done its best to persuade the Council to change its stance and had no other work for the employee.
Appeal dismissed – The decision of the Court of Appeal in Dobie v Burns International Security Services (UK) Ltd [1984] ICR 812 did not mean that an omission expressly to refer to the injustice caused to an employee by a dismissal at the behest of a third party was an error of law, provided that it was apparent that the tribunal had taken that factor into account.

Judges:

Underhill J P

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0209 – 09 – 0110, [2010] IRLR 466

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Bancroft v Interserve (Facilities Management) Ltd EAT 13-Dec-2012
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal
The Employment Tribunal erred in holding that the Respondent had taken all steps to seek to mitigate the injustice caused to the Claimant by his removal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.377311

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Striking-out/dismissal.
Unless the Claimant’s contentions can be rejected without any evidence being heard, it is an error of law to strike out a case as having no reasonable prospects of success on the basis that it is unarguable. In the instant case, whilst it might be difficult for the Claimant to persuade a full tribunal that she had not been guilty of academic fraud and thus not committed acts of gross misconduct and that her dismissal owed nothing to her allegations of sexual harassment made against a male superior, the employment judge had erred in concluding that giving evidence in support of her allegations could not make the case arguable. Nor was the case sufficiently exceptional to justify the dismissal of allegations of sex discrimination without factual investigation.

Judges:

Hand QC J

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0450 – 08 – 1305

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.376152

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL: Mitigation of loss
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity
CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT: Sick pay and holiday pay
Principles to be applied when considering whether the Respondent has shown that the Claimant had failed to mitigate her loss.
Whether a procedural irregularity occurred below in relation to ‘agreed’ wages figures or whether ET gave sufficient notice of its intention to assess the figures on basis of evidence put before them.
Whether contractual claim for pay in lieu of unused holiday entitlement following termination of the employment offended reg. 35(1)(a) WTR 1998.
Appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0024 – 09 – 1410

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.376157

EAT VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
New evidence on appeal
Costs
The Employment Tribunal was right to reject the Claimant’s victimisation claim. It disbelieved her allegation that she saw the solicitor representing her previous employer in her first unsuccessful race discrimination visit her current employer.
The Employment Tribunal did not err when it awarded andpound;7000 costs against her, taking into account that she had refused a payment to her in settlement of andpound;5000.
An application to raise a new point based on the Respondent’s suspicion under Race Relations Act 1976 s2(1) that the Claimant had made an earlier claim was refused. This is a disjunctive and separate head from the issue defined at the outset, based on knowledge and would require further investigation by the Employment Tribunal: principles approved in CELTEC v Astley [2006] IRLR 635 HL applied.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 1375 – 08 – 0909

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.376155

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL: Constructive dismissal
In upholding the Claimant’s disability discrimination claim and dismissing her constructive dismissal claim, the Employment Tribunal misconstrued her letter of resignation, which was unequivocal save for invoking, as required, the grievance procedure, and failed to add the preceding conduct to the final straw. Omilaju applied, Norwest Holst distinguished.
Appeal allowed and constructive dismissal claim remitted to same Employment Tribunal.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0052 – 09 – 1409

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Shergold v Fieldway Medical Centre EAT 5-Dec-2005
The claimant had submitted a grievance complaining in general terms of the way in which she had been treated by a manager. She did not, however, refer to a particular incident relied on in her pleading as one of the two ‘last straw’ incidents that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.376156

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity
On the material available at a contested preliminary hearing, there was no prospect that on live evidence the EAT would find that an Employment Judge announced a decision refusing to strike out the Claimant’s case before lunch, and without explanation gave a Judgment to the opposite effect after lunch. The Claimant was not a reliable reporter of her own legal proceedings, her accounts not being supported by respectively her junior and leading Counsel.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0177 – 09 – 1908

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.376154

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Striking-out/dismissal
JURISDICTIONAL POINTS
Agency relationships
Striking out of agency worker’s claim for outstanding wages inappropriate in the light of the legal and factual complexity of such cases; and also of an email from the employer found by the Claimant shortly after the hearing, which the Tribunal ought to have admitted on an application for review.
Bean J said: ‘The original decision to strike out against the First Respondent had been made on two grounds. One was the Claimant’s statement to the Employment Judge that she considered that Parasol was not liable to pay her any money. With respect to the judge, it is unwise to rely on the view of an unrepresented Claimant as to the law, particularly in an area of such complexity and difficulty as that of agency workers. In any event, what the Claimant said was said without the benefit of the email.’

Judges:

Bean J

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0536 – 08 – 2307

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Southern Cross Healthcare Co Ltd v Perkins and Others EAT 21-Apr-2010
EAT CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT
Written Particulars
The employment tribunal can reformulate the juridical basis of a complaint so long as the facts upon which the complaint is based remain the same and . .
Appeal from – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.376153

EAT CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT
Implied term /variation /construction of term
Tribunal entitled to find that evidence that the employee had undergone a conventional induction on recruitment did not constitute evidence that he had received ‘training’ at a cost of andpound;500 which the employer was entitled to recover under a claw-back clause.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0061 – 08 – 0207

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.375930

EAT Jurisdictional Points: 2002 Act and pre-action requirements.
Tribunal had erred in holding that a letter from the Claimant had not constituted a grievance statement under the statutory procedures: Shergold followed.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0008 – 09 – 0107

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.375929

EAT Striking out/Dismissal
Employment Judge correct in not making a deposit order even when a continuation of contract order has been made.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0306 – 09 – 2508

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.375931

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Perversity
The Claimant, the Respondent’s shop manager, was responsible for bagging takings for collection. She was shown on CCTV turning the CCTV off during that process. There was a substantial cash shortage. The Employment Tribunal held she was unfairly dismissed because it regarded the Respondent’s investigation as inadequate and because of a perceived inequality of treatment compared with another employee who had been present.
Held: the decision was perverse. The Tribunal had substituted its own view as to the adequacy of the investigation. There was no disparity of treatment. The Respondent could not bring disciplinary proceedings against the other employee because she had already left the Respondent’s employment.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0378 – 08 – 1106

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.375925

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Striking-out/dismissal
On remission by the EAT, the Employment Tribunal did not err when it heard evidence and then struck out the Claimant’s claims of dismissal and detriment contrary to Employment Rights Act 1996 s 44, following her complaints about health and safety. It noted her related claims for andpound;20m against the Respondent and other defendants in the retail sector were struck out in the High Court, from which her appeal had no merit.

Judges:

McMullen QC J

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0047 – 09 – 1908

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.375932

EAT VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION
The First Respondent was employed by the Second Respondent in security at the premises of the Appellant. The Appellant required the Second Respondent to remove the First Respondent after he was discovered making covert recordings of the Appellant’s staff. The Second Respondent did not have an alternative position for the First Respondent and dismissed him. The First Respondent alleged he had been subjected to a detriment by the Appellant contrary to s.48(1B) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. He made his complaint to the ET more than three months after the Appellant required his removal from site but less than three months after his dismissal by the Second Respondent.
Held: his complaint was out of time. The detriment was the requirement of removal and the subsequent dismissal by the Second Respondent could not be said either to be an act or deliberate failure to act by the Appellant or part of a continuing act.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0192 – 09 – 2406

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.375926

EAT CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT
Notice and Pay in Lieu
REDUNDANCY
Payment of ‘money in lieu’ on dismissal of Claimant could not be ‘ascribed’/’appropriated’ to an unpaid redundancy payment.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0003 – 09 – 0207

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.375928

EAT Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke
Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity
Rule 37 gives a general discretion to extend time for the doing of any act in the EAT, whether the deadline has passed or not. In deciding whether to grant relief against an unless order, or when a party is in breach of an order, practice direction or rule, in particular when the time limit for complying has expired, the EAT will apply principles analogous to those applied in the High Court, by reference to the guidance in CPR 3.9 for relief from sanctions. This is envisaged by PD1.8 which permits resort to the CPR if appropriate to the unique constitution of the EAT.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0183 – 09 – 0810

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.375933

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL: Reasonableness of dismissal
The Respondent below employed the Claimant to run its transport business. The business lost its most valuable customer but the Claimant concealed the loss from the directors. Because of the concealment he was dismissed. The Employment Tribunal took the view that it would have conducted further inquiries and that the penalty of dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses.
Held: despite its reference to the appropriate authorities the Tribunal had entered the arena and substituted its own view for that of the employer. Appeal allowed. Claim for unfair dismissal dismissed.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0010 – 09 – 1706

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.375922

EAT WORKING TIME REGULATIONS: Worker
The Appellant did work for the Respondent. Was he a worker or did he carry on a business undertaking? The Employment Tribunal held he was not a worker. It did not err in law in so holding.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0107 – 09 – 1606

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.375921

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE Review – Appellate jurisdiction /reasons/Burns-Barke
Claimant representative failed to attend review hearing on time – application dismissed. Relief against sanction. Inadequate reasoning. Case remitted for review hearing before fresh Employment Tribunal Judge.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0079 – 09 – 1607

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.375192

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS: Worker, employee or neither
CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT: Whether established
REDUNDANCY: Definition
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Split hearings
The ET erred in holding that contracts for the employment of a locum consultant entered into in breach of the National Health Service (Appointment of Consultants) Regulations 1996 as amended were not ultra vires. However the ET did not err in holding that even if they were ultra vires, the locum consultant was an employee within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and could pursue a claim for unfair dismissal in respect of the non renewal of his contract. Dicta of Rix LJ in Eastbourne Borough Council v Foster [2002] ICR 234 applied and status of workers performing duties under an ultra vires contract considered.
Perversity in holding that a position as a locum consultant was ‘distinct and different from that of the substantive post’ and that dismissal was for redundancy when the locum consultant post was not renewed notwithstanding that the substantive consultant post was vacant.
The ET erred in determining remedy when the Employment Judge had agreed with the parties that there would be a split hearing.
Findings of unfair dismissal and breach of contract set aside. Decision dismissing claim for contractual redundancy payment substituted. Unfair dismissal claim remitted for rehearing to a different ET.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0499 – 08 – 2108

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.375199

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Striking-out/dismissal
Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke
The Claimant dentist was dismissed in 2001 after an irreparable breakdown in working relationships from 1998. The Employment Judge struck out her claims as firm findings in her High Court claims at a three week trial in 2006 meant there was no reasonable prospect of her succeeding on unfair dismissal and a fair trial of that and disability discrimination was impossible in 2009. The Respondent operated the correct disciplinary procedure. Application to amend the Notice of Appeal refused: Khudados applied. Appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0203 – 09 – 2608

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.375196

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Appellate jurisdiction/reasons / Burns-Barke
A Notice of Appeal without supporting documents was lodged on day 41 at the Employment Tribunal and forwarded to the EAT on day 42 with missing documents lodged on day 45. The substantive appeal had no merit. A discretionary extension was refused, no explanation being given for the first 41 days, or the incomplete and mistaken lodging at the Employment Tribunal.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0118 – 09 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.375194

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Striking-out/dismissal
Employee acting in person, claiming discrimination and unfair dismissal, failed to answer request for particulars, very largely concerned with the discrimination allegations. Striking-out of discrimination claims upheld but striking out of unfair dismissal claim held to be disproportionate.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0238 – 09 – 2407

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.375201

EAT VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION: Whistleblowing
The Employment Tribunal could not be faulted in making no decision on detriment suffered by the Claimant as a result of an alleged protected disclosure since it was not an issue to be determined. Anyway, the findings of the Employment Tribunal on the relevant issues, upheld by Burton J at a Rule 3 hearing, would doom any such claim.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0261 – 09 – 2408

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.375193

REDUNDANCY: Fairness
UNFAIR DISMISSAL: Compensation
The Claimant was the only employee of a family firm. A redundancy situation arose. The Claimant was then unfairly dismissed. He applied to the Employment Tribunal. Three relevant issues arose. (1) Would he have been dismissed if a fair procedure had been adopted? (2) What uplift should the Tribunal award for failure to follow statutory procedures? And (3) to what figures should the uplift be applied?
Held: (1) The Tribunal had been wrong to construct a pool comprising a partner and an employee. As the only employee the Claimant would inevitably have been made redundant. (2) The Tribunal was entitled to award the maximum 50 per cent uplift. (3) The uplift could only be applied to awards, so the employer could successfully avoid the uplift by paying sums due shortly before the Tribunal hearing.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0527 – 08 – 0406

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.375190

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL: Compensation
Unfair dismissal compensatory award: whether Claimant mitigated her loss.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0534 – 08 – 2107

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.375191

EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
Direct disability discrimination
Disability related discrimination
The Claimant, who was disabled within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, was employed as a solicitor by the Respondent, the service company of a well know firm of solicitors. Reasonable adjustments were agreed to facilitate the Claimant’s working. These proved satisfactory and enabled the Claimant to carry out his duties to the complete satisfaction of his clients and without any commercial disadvantage to the Respondent. The Claimant was dismissed because the Respondent erroneously and unreasonably believed that the financial effect of the agreed adjustments made the Claimant a commercial liability. There was ample evidence to support the findings by the Employment Tribunal that the Claimant had been dismissed by reason of his disability or for a reason connected with his disability.
The correct comparator was a fellow lawyer of the same grade and skills as the Claimant who shared a similarly good relationship with the client, who for reasons other than disability required adjustments to be made to enable him to work and in respect of whom reasonable adjustments had been agreed to the satisfaction of both employer and employee, and in respect of whom commercial performance, even having regard to the proposed adjustments was not an issue. It would have been irrational for the Respondent to have dismissed such an employee. The comparator could not be a fellow non-disabled employee whom the Respondent unreasonably believed might inhibit the firm’s commercial objectives.
An unreasonable and incorrect belief on the part of an employer that a particular employee might inhibit the firm’s commercial objective would not constitute part of the employee’s ‘relevant circumstances’ within the meaning of s3A(5) of the Act.
An employer who had agreed reasonable adjustments could not then turn round and dismiss the employee because it unreasonably considered that those reasonable adjustments made him a commercial liability, on the basis that it have unreasonably considered a non-disabled employee in respect of whom similar adjustments had been made, to be a commercial liability. If employers were permitted to act in this way, a coach and horses would be driven through the protection given to employees by the Act and the duty to make reasonable adjustments rendered worthless.
Where there was evidence from which an inference of discrimination might be drawn, and the Employment Tribunal rejected non-discriminatory explanations by the employer, it was proper for the Employment Tribunal draw he inference that the dismissal of the claimant was for a discriminatory reason.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0497 – 08 – 2509

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.375200

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL
The Appellant was dismissed from his post as a teacher. The Employment Tribunal held the principal reason for his dismissal was his dishonesty in stating he held Qualified Teacher status. The Employment Tribunal decision failed to give adequate reasons as to why the decision of the dismissing panel was fair and one for which they had adequate grounds for belief and in reaching its own conclusions as to the Appellant’s dishonesty failed to deal with substantial points. The decision was not Meek compliant. Remitted for re-hearing.

Judges:

Reid QC J

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0091 – 09 – 0906

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.375189

EAT RACE DISCRIMINATION – Inferring Discrimination
Tribunal wrong to apply test in King v Great Britain-China Centre [1992] ICR 516 instead of applying s.54A of Race Relations Act 1976 on the basis that the Claimant was claiming ‘colour discrimination’ – Chagger v Abbey National plc [2009] ICR 624 followed – but held that there was on the facts no substantive difference between the two approaches and that the Tribunal had been entitled on the evidence not to find race discrimination.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0124 – 09 – 0306

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.375188

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Time for appealing
At 15.12 on day 42, a Claimant did not attach the Judgment and reasons to a Notice of Appeal sent by email. There were no reasons to explain his mistake nor to grant an extension. Observations on the EAT’s approach. Reliance on Woodward requiring the Appellant to show it was impossible to lodge the appeal was incorrect but the Registrar correctly refused to register the appeal.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 1571 – 08 – 1808

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.374685

EAT EQUAL PAY ACT: Part-Time Pensions
Part-time pensions. NHS employee did not join a voluntary scheme after having become eligible to do so. Circumstances in which Tribunal was found to have erred in law, not having addressed (a) the question of whether the claimant would have joined the scheme in 1988 if she had been eligible to do so; and (b) whether the claimant’s ignorance of her entitlement to join the scheme after 1991 (from which time she was eligible to do so) was attributable to a policy or campaign of the dissemination of misinformation about her rights.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0053 – 08 – 0907

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.374682

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Time for appealing
The Claimant’s Notice of Appeal was out of time as she sent it to the Employment Tribunal and not the EAT. On live evidence, no acceptable excuse was found to justify the exercise of discretion under Rule 37(1).

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 1496 – 08 – 1407

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.374681

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Review
Appellate jurisdiction /reasons /Burns-Barke
There was no explanation on appeal for the Claimant’s out of time application for a review of the Employment Tribunal’s dismissal of her case when she did not attend. As a matter of substance the Judgment was anyway correct. Application to adduce new evidence dismissed. Ladd v Marshall applied.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 1339 – 08 – 1208

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Secretary of State for Health v Rance EAT 4-May-2007
EAT Equal Pay Act – Part time pensions
Practice and Procedure – Appellate jurisdiction/Reasons/Burns-Barke
The EAT exercised its discretion to allow a point conceded at the Employment Tribunal to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.374684

EAT National Security
Order for hearing in private pursuant to rule 54 (2) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure upheld – Observations as to correct approach to applications for hearings in private in the interests of national security and as to procedure to be followed.

Judges:

Underhill P J

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0101 – 09 – 2407, [2010] ICR 54

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.374678

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Time for appealing
Appeal from Registrar allowed after evidence heard as to the extent of the Appellant’s disability due to severe dyslexia.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 1444 – 08 – 2005

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.374677

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Case management
On remission to the Employment Tribunal by the EAT, a CMD set out the issues to be heard. The full range of the Claimant’s 12 strands of discrimination was not to be determined but only considered as background to two claims. There was no appeal against that agreed order so the full hearing could not be criticised when it did not descend into decisions on all the original claims. There was no evidence that the Jehovah’s Witnesses were filming him in the toilet or that the Prime Minister and the Queen were directing judicial decisions.
EMPLAW EMPLAW An appeal to the EAT was rejected on sift. The EAT refused to reinstate it (on rule 3(7) application).
Mr Johnson was a kitchen porter empoyed by the Radisson Edwardian Group at their Sussex Hotel in the West End of London. He was dismissed and raised a large number of complaints about his treatment. In the words of the EAT (HHJ McMullen) Mr Johnson ‘is not a person who restricts himself to succinct submissions and his claim form and supporting material extend over some 36 pages. In it he complains variously of discrimination on the grounds of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability. He complains that he has been victimised, harassed and humiliated and that he was unfairly and wrongfully dismissed’.
Mr Johnson was once a member of the Watchtower Society, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, although they parted company in 2003. Since then it is his belief that they have decided to wreck his life. He talked about the Watch Tower Society instigating his dismissal; coming into the Hotel to turn staff against him; spreading rumours about his sexuality; preventing witnesses from assisting him; falsely imprisoning him in a Psychiatric Hospital; installing secret cameras in changing rooms and in his room; and showing the tapes to the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair.
An Employment Judge imposed a stay when she agreed an application made by Edwardian International Hotels Ltd that the Official Solicitor should take control of the proceedings on the basis that Mr Johnson was delusional and had mental incapacity. The EAT allowed an appeal against that order in May 2008 (Underhill J. pointed out that ‘the courts and tribunals have experience of many litigants with strange beliefs or obsessions which may reflect mental ill-health of one kind or another, but only in extreme cases does the question generally arise of treating them as mentally incapable: mental illness does not necessarily involve mental incapacity’ – see Johnson v Edwardian International Hotels Ltd, EAT 2nd May 2008).
Eventually Mr Johnson’s claim of unfair dismissal was rejected (a claim of wrongful dismissal was accepted and the Tribunal made an award in his favour of andpound;372).
He appealed to the EAT but his appeal was not allowed to proceed. It was rejected on the sift as not disclosing any arguable question of law. As was his right (see Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993, SI 1993/2854, as amended, rule 3(7) he applied for that rejection to be overruled.
Mr Johnson was represented by Counsel but even so has failed in this attempt. His application was dismissed, the EAT stating ‘The appeal will be taken no further and is effectively dismissed’.

In the course of his judgment HHJ McMullen pointed out ‘In the hands of skilled Counsel like Mr Purchase anything is arguable, but that is not the test.’ He also noted that Mr Johnson was ‘still aggrieved about the way in which his case was handled at the Employment Tribunal [and] . . sought to address me on the involvement of politicians in judicial decision making. In short, it was his complaint that the Prime Minister, The Right Honourable Mr Gordon Brown PC MP, had directed judicial officers to make the decisions which they did’. He also contended that the Queen and the previous Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair, together with the Ghanaian High Commission, were involved in the dispute and controlling judicial decisions.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 1558 – 08 – 2307

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.374679

EAT 1. The employee put forward travel expenses claims for journeys for the purposes of his work but in his own car. On investigation the employers concluded that the details were false and the total claims exaggerated. The employee said that the details were false but the totals were correct. He was dismissed for gross misconduct. The Tribunal found that the dismissal was procedurally unfair and was substantively unfair because they did not reasonably believe that he had been dishonest. They found one-third contributory fault.
2. The Tribunal found, on the employees contract claim for unpaid expenses in respect of a subsequent period, that he had exaggerated his total claims, in respect of the earlier period, by 30%.
3. Held, on appeal, (i) that the Tribunal had erred in basing their conclusion as to reasonable belief on the absence of such belief in dishonesty on the part of the employee in overclaiming. The employer’s case was that he had been dishonest, whether or not he had overclaimed, in basing his claims on details he knew to be false; and in any event gross misconduct could in the context be reasonably believed in without dishonesty; (ii) if the Tribunal had correctly understood the employers’ case, they would inevitably have concluded that their reaction fell within the range of reasonable responses; (iii) in any event , having found for the purposes of the contract claim that the employee had overclaimed, the Tribunal had erred in excluding that finding from their consideration of the unfair dismissal claim; (iv) the appeal against the finding of procedural unfairness failed; (v) remitted to the Tribunal to reconsider contribution and compensation.

Judges:

Burke QC J

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0294 – 08 – 0304

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Secretary of State for Health v Rance EAT 4-May-2007
EAT Equal Pay Act – Part time pensions
Practice and Procedure – Appellate jurisdiction/Reasons/Burns-Barke
The EAT exercised its discretion to allow a point conceded at the Employment Tribunal to be . .
See Also – Zimmer Ltd v Brezan EAT 24-Oct-2008
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL: Procedural fairness/automatically unfair dismissal
This judgment addresses only the issue as to whether the Employment Tribunal’s finding of automatically unfair dismissal was wrong in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.374676

Citations:

[1837] EngR 879, (1837) 8 Car and P 80, (1837) 173 ER 408

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.313996

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

Judges:

His Honour Judge A Wilkie QC

Citations:

EAT/1000/00

Links:

EATn

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.254831

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Exclusions including worker

Judges:

The Honourable Lord Johnston

Citations:

EATS/0053/04, [2004] UKEAT 0053 – 04 – 1612

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

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

Employment

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.222392

Citations:

[1997] UKEAT 1205 – 96 – 0403

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.207283

Citations:

[2002] UKEAT 1273 – 01 – 2604

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.202747

Citations:

[1995] UKEAT 1244 – 95 – 3011

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.209555

Citations:

[1994] UKEAT 982 – 93 – 2006

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.209957

Citations:

[1995] UKEAT 850 – 95 – 1412

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.209606

EAT Insolvency

Judges:

His Hon Judge Clark

Citations:

[2003] UKEAT 1356 – 01 – 0705, EAT/1356/01

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.191612

Action in furtherance of trade dispute was lawful even with other and additional motives.

Citations:

Independent 27-Apr-1993

Statutes:

Trades Union and Labour Relations Act 1992

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.90283

EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal

Judges:

The Honourable Lord Johnston

Citations:

EAT/396/99

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.171382

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Interim relief
Order for interim relief in case of alleged whistleblower dismissal overturned because Judge had failed to consider whether it was likely that a Tribunal would find that the Claimant’s belief that the matters disclosed tended to show breaches of a legal obligation was reasonable; and because it was in fact not likely that it would so find – Taplin v C Shippam Ltd [1978] ICR 1068 considered.

Judges:

Underhill P J

Citations:

[2011] UKEAT 0578 – 10 – 0702

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.431864

EAT CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Apprenticeship
NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE
Claim for national minimum wage – Employer contends that claimant employed under a contract of apprenticeship and so excluded by reg. 12 (2) of Regulations – Tribunal holds that Claimant was employee and not apprentice.
Held, allowing appeal, that on the evidence before it the Tribunal should have found the Claimant to be an apprentice – Flett v Matheson [2007] IRLR 277 followed.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 268 – 10 – 0707

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.428567

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Procedural fairness/automatically unfair dismissal.

Judges:

Reid QC HHJ

Citations:

[2001] UKEAT 1193 – 00 – 2811, EAT/1193/00

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.204420

Citations:

[2002] UKEAT 136 – 01 – 2203

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.202648

Citations:

[2002] UKEAT 1216 – 01 – 2203

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.202664

Judges:

Luba QC Rec

Citations:

[2003] EAT 0244 – 03 – 1605, [2003] UKEAT 0244 – 03 – 1605

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.191608

To count as a trade dispute, the dispute must ‘relate wholly or mainly’ to terms and conditions of employment and must not merely be ‘connected’ with them. The application of this test requires the court: ‘to consider not merely the occasion which caused the dispute to break out but also the reason why there was a dispute’. Whether there is a trade dispute is a mixed question of fact and law, but primarily one of fact.

Judges:

Dillon LJ

Citations:

[1984] Ch 37

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – In re P (a minor by his mother and litigation friend); P v National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers HL 27-Feb-2003
The pupil had been excluded from school but then ordered to be re-instated. The teachers, through their union, refused to teach him claiming that he was disruptive. The claimant appealed a refusal of an injunction. The injunction had been refused on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.223721

The Board employed miners belonging to two rival unions, the National Union of Mineworkers (‘the NUM’) and the Union of Democratic Mineworkers (‘the UDM’), at the same colliery. The Board agreed to pay increased wages to members of the UDM but not to members of the NUM. On application by members of the NUM, the industrial tribunal had held that withholding the increase from the applicants was an ‘omission’ amounting to ‘action (short of dismissal) taken against’ them for the purpose of penalising them for being members of the NUM and thus was a contravention of section 23(1)(a).
Held: The application of the definition ”act’ and ‘action’ each includes omission and references to doing an act or taking action shall be construed accordingly;’ to section 23(1) has the effect that, if an employer confers a benefit on employee A which he withholds from employee B, the omission to confer the benefit on B may. if the circumstances warrant such a finding, amount to ‘action (short of dismissal) taken against’ B for one of the purposes prohibited by section 23(1) irrespective of the question whether B had any reasonable expectation of receiving that benefit.
May LJ: ‘There must, at the least, have been some obligation to pay or some expectation of receipt to enable one to categorise the non-payment of U.D.M. rates to these applicants as an ‘omission’ on the part of the board to make such payments.’
Nicholls LJ: ‘For an act to constitute ‘action’ within section 23 there does not need to be any reasonable expectation by the employee that the employer would not so behave. This being so, I see no justification for adding this requirement as a gloss on the language of the statute in the case of an ‘omission’. To be within section 23 the conduct complained of has to have been done ‘for the purpose of.’ If it is for one of the requisite purposes that an employer omits to do something vis-a-vis the complainant employee as an individual then, whatever is the nature of the omission, it is impermissible.’

Judges:

Nicholls and Bingham LJJ, May LJ dissenting

Citations:

[1987] ICR 641

Statutes:

Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 23(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Associated Newspapers Ltd v Wilson; Associated British Ports v Palmer HL 31-Mar-1995
The Daily Mail had recognised the Union to which their journalists belonged. They wanted to end this arrangement, and offered a better rate of pay to non-members. The union said this was an unlawful action taken because of union membership. Similar . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.251039

The College replaced a plumber who could do the work of a heating engineer with a heating engineer who could do plumbing work. The number of employees and the work remained the same.
Held: The dismissal was by reason of redundancy because the business needed fewer plumbers; a plumber (one specialist skill) had been replaced by a heating engineer (different specialist skill).
Sir Denys Buckley: ‘Every case of re-organisation must, I think, depend ultimately on its particular facts. In each case it must be for the individual tribunal to decide whether the re-organisation and re-allocation of functions within the staff is such as to change the particular kind of work which a particular employee, or successive employees, is or are required to carry out, and whether such change has had any, and if so what, effect on the employer’s requirement for employees to carry out a particular kind of work.’

Judges:

Sir Denys Buckley

Citations:

[1985] ICR 80, [1984] IRLR 271

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – British Broadcasting Corporation v Farnworth EAT 13-Jul-1998
The claimant employee said that the non-renewal of her fixed term contract was not a redundancy as alleged.
Held: It could still be a redundancy situation when an employee is dismissed because the organisation requires an employee with more . .
Cited – Shawkat v Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust CA 21-Jun-2001
The claimant doctor had been dismissed. He said it was unfairly, and the Trust replied that he had been made redundant ‘for some other reason’ since he had nt acceted new conditions of work.
Held: The employee’s appeal failed. The EAT had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.214633

EAT Unfair dismissal, time limits. Procedure. Claim 23 days late. Whether reasonably practicable to have presented it within the three months period. Procedure adopted by Tribunal not appropriate. Tribunal judgment that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented within the three month period set aside and claim dismissed.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0079 – 08 – 1007

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.373195

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS: Worker, employee or neither
For 13 years the Claimant worked installing double glazing for the Respondent. In 2004 he signed a ‘contract supply agreement’ though matters continued as before. On the Respondent ceasing to use his services the Claimant claimed unfair dismissal. The Respondent asserted the Claimant was not an employee but a supplier of services under the agreement which contained an ‘entire agreement’ clause. The Employment Judge characterised the ‘entire agreement’ clause as a sham and looking at all the circumstances held the Claimant was an employee. The Respondent appealed.
Held: the Employment Judge was entitled to reach the conclusion that the entire agreement clause was a sham and looking at all the circumstances to hold that the Claimant was an employee. Appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0188 – 09 – 1808

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996

Citing:

Cited – Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd CA 1967
Sham requires common intent to create other result
The court considered a claim by a hire-purchase company for the return of a vehicle. The bailee said the agreement was a sham.
Held: The word ‘sham’ should only be used to describe an act or document where the parties have a common intention . .
Cited – Ready Mixed Concrete Southeast Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance QBD 8-Dec-1967
Contracts of service or for services
In three cases appeals were heard against a finding as to whether a worker was entitled to have his employer pay National Insurance contributions on his behalf which would apply if he were an employee. He worked as an ‘owner-driver’
Held: The . .
Cited – Clark v Oxfordshire Health Authority CA 18-Dec-1997
A nurse was employed under a contract, under which there was no mutuality of obligation; she could refuse work and employer need offer none. This meant that there was no employment capable of allowing an unfair dismissal issue to arise.
Sir . .
Cited – Consistent Group Ltd v Kalwak and others CA 29-Apr-2008
The court was asked whether the claimants were either employees or workers of the company. They had been engaged to wash cars under nil-hours contracts. . .
Cited – Protectacoat Firthglow Ltd v Szilagyi CA 20-Feb-2009
The court considered an employment contract said to be a sham.
Held: While a document which could be shown to be a sham designed to deceive others would be wholly disregarded in deciding what was the true relationship between the parties, it . .
Cited – Redrow Homes (Yorkshire) Ltd v Buckborough and Another EAT 10-Oct-2008
redrow_buckboroughEAT2008
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS: Worker, employee or neither
WORKING TIME REGULATIONS: Worker / Holiday pay
As in Redrow Homes (Yorkshire) Ltd v Wright 2004 IRLR 720, the issue in this appeal was whether . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Launahurst Ltd v Larner CA 30-Mar-2010
The company appealed against a finding that the respondent was its employee and not an independent contractor, and that its contract with him was a sham.
Held: The employer’s appeal succeeded. The EAT had erred: ‘there was plainly a procedural . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.372868

EAT Circumstances in which Tribunal erred in finding that employers had failed to comply with the statutory grievance procedure. Conflation of matters relevant to an assessment of fairness of procedure under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 with the narrow and more limited requirements of the SGP.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0021 – 09 – 2807

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 98

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.373192

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Case management
Specific disclosure orders made at CMD attached on grounds of relevance, proportionality and confidentiality. No error of law in Employment Judge’s approach to the first two grounds; the third was, on balance, not argued below and was not permitted for the first time on appeal, applying the Kumchyk line of authorities (no exceptional circumstances shown).

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0528 – 08 – 0406

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.372867

EAT Redundancy pool. Circumstances in which Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the Tribunal had erred and substituted its own view for that of the reasonable employee. The claimant agreed that there was a redundancy and that all aspects of the procedure adopted other than the selection of the pool had been fair. Appeal upheld and judgment of the Tribunal set aside. If they had not done so, the Employment Appeal Tribunal would, in any event, have set aside the award in respect of future loss of earnings insofar as it was based on an assumption of continuing payment of bonus (an assumption which was made without any basis in findings in fact and relating to the car industry in a recession).

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0019 – 09 – 0707

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.372606

EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
On a pre-hearing concession by the Respondent that the Claimant was disabled, it was not relevant to consider whether the Respondent knew the condition was likely to last 12 months, the only issue being whether the Respondent knew she was disabled, as to which the Employment Tribunal found that it was artificial to say one department did and another did not, this being a composite employer. Judgment reversed and remitted to the same Employment Tribunal for remed

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0046 – 09 – 1007

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Secretary of State for Health v Rance EAT 4-May-2007
EAT Equal Pay Act – Part time pensions
Practice and Procedure – Appellate jurisdiction/Reasons/Burns-Barke
The EAT exercised its discretion to allow a point conceded at the Employment Tribunal to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.372604

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Amendment
JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – 2002 Act and pre-action requirements
Judge refused permission to Claimant to amend claim form to include claim under s. 103A of Employment Rights Act 1996
Held that Judge erred in law by failing properly to analyse the extent to which the proposed amendment would extend the scope of the issues and the evidence – Amendment permitted, applying the approach in Selkent – observations on relevance of fact that claim under s. 103A had not been explicitly covered by a grievance under the statutory procedure.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0249 – 09 – 3107

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Shergold v Fieldway Medical Centre EAT 5-Dec-2005
The claimant had submitted a grievance complaining in general terms of the way in which she had been treated by a manager. She did not, however, refer to a particular incident relied on in her pleading as one of the two ‘last straw’ incidents that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.372605

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Review
A review was ordered of a strike out for non pursuit of the claim. Notice was not given to the Claimant and she did not know of the review hearing where the strike out was affirmed. A further application for review of the review judgment was dismissed.
Held: this was a cogent ground under Rule 34 and the review judgment was set aside and a rehearing ordered.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0181 – 09 – 1407

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.372607