EAT Unlawful Deduction from Wages

Judges:

Mr Recorder Luba QC

Citations:

EAT/159/03

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.186809

The use of foul language by an employer can undermine a contract of employment and be a foundation for a claim for constructive dismissal.

Citations:

[1978] ICR 1008

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Horkulak v Cantor Fitzgerald International QBD 31-Jul-2003
The claimant sought damages for constructive dismissal. He said that verbal abuse he had suffered from the manager damaged his health and destroyed the relationship of trust and confidence.
Held: The manager was dictatorial and saw it as his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.185211

The company’s pension scheme provided that the trustees were to form an opinion as to the employee’s ability or otherwise to work. The plaintiff sought payment of an ill-health pension under the Bank Pension Scheme.
Held: A pension scheme trust is quite different from other trusts. Pension benefits are part of the consideration which an employee receives in return for the rendering of his services. If the basis of the decision was in error, the employee had the right to ask a court to review the decision
Nicholls LJ: ‘I do not think it is necessary to pursue these points of trust law. It is unnecessary to consider what might be the position under the law of trusts if the trust deed stood alone, and the plaintiff’s rights were to be found only within the four corners of the trust deed and the rules. It is unnecessary, because this is a case in which the plaintiff’s status as a member springs from her contract of employment with the bank. The bank holds out this pension scheme to its staff as a valuable part of the staff’s overall remuneration package. That being so, when one finds that under the rules of the pension scheme certain functions are entrusted to the bank, it is, in my view, necessarily implicit in the contract of employment that the bank agrees with the employee that it will duly discharge those functions in good faith. In particular, if a member of the bank staff will become entitled to payment of an ill-health pension if the bank is of the relevant opinion concerning the state of health of the employee, it is an implied term of the contract that the bank will properly consider a genuine claim by an employee that her health qualifies her for an ill-health pension. To my mind it is unthinkable that the position might be otherwise. …’

Judges:

Nicholls LJ

Citations:

Times 18-Aug-1989, [1989] IRLR 522

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – South West Trains Ltd v Wightman and Others ChD 14-Jan-1998
The trades’ union had agreed with the employer that what had been irregular and non-pensionable payments made to employees would, in future, be paid regularly, but that only certain parts of the payments become pensionable. The employer now sought . .
Cited – Hill v General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation Plc SCS 13-Aug-1998
. .
Cited – Sieff v Fox ChD 23-Jun-2005
The advisers to trustees wrongly advised the trustees about the tax consequences of exercising a power of appointment in a certain way. As a result a large unforeseen Capital Gains Tax liability arose. The trustees sought to set aside the . .
Cited – Hutchings v London Borough of Islington CA 28-Apr-1998
A Local Government employee’s failure to follow available appeal procedure did not prevent him asking the county court to determine his entitlement to superannuation benefits on retirement. . .
Cited – Regina v West Yorkshire Fire and Civil Defence Authority and ex parte Lockwood and McCalman Admn 4-May-1999
The court considered the nature of the employment duties of retained firefighters: ‘their [i.e. whole time firefighter’s] ‘principal duty’ or . . core obligation had been firefighting.’ . .
Cited – Imperial Group Pension Trust Ltd v Imperial Tobacco Ltd 1991
A company pension scheme had been operating for many years, with increases being provided for under one rule. A new rule was introduced to provide regular increases. The company was taken over, and the trustees sought clarification of the company’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.182112

Appeal against a finding that the contract of employment of Mr Laurie, contained provisions to defraud the revenue and therefore was not one upon which the Tribunal could or should adjudicate.

Judges:

Knox HHJ

Citations:

[1994] ICR 32, [1993] UKEAT 210 – 92 – 1901

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Phoenix Catering Ltd v Mayers EAT 19-Sep-2001
The claimant had made claims for arrears of pay and holiday pay after termination of her employment. Those claims failed, but the tribunal awarded holiday pay for a period for which she had made no claim. The claimant had indicated by letter that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.183053

EAT Race Discrimination : Indirect – In a test case, it was assumed that BME candidates disproportionately failed the CSA test, passing which was necessary to progress to higher grades in the Civil Service. The Respondent argued successfully that claims of indirect discrimination could not succeed unless the individual Claimants could prove the reason they failed the test. Unless they could do so they could not show that they were at ‘that disadvantage’ as required by statute: showing that the group of them who were BME were disadvantaged was not enough.
Held There was no evidence to suggest the individual Claimants were not at ‘that disadvantage’ in a situation in which it was known that the group of which they were part suffered it, where the precise reason why an apparently neutral criterion had that effect was unknown.

Judges:

Langstaff J

Citations:

[2014] UKEAT 0480 – 13 – 1605

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Equality Act 2010 19

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Home Office (UK Border Agency) v Essop and Others CA 22-Jun-2015
The appellant challenged a finding that it was guilty of indirect race discrimination. A statistical study showed that BME candidates did rather less well on a standard assessment test, but while the correlation was clear, the manner of . .
At EAT – Essop and Others v Home Office (UK Border Agency) SC 5-Apr-2017
The appellants alleged indirect race and belief discrimination in the conditions of their employment by the respondent. Essop came as lead claimant challenging the tests used for promotion. Statistics showed lower pass rates for BME candidates, but . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.526088

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL
Dismissal/ambiguous resignation
Whether Claimant dismissed under s95(1)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996. Security guard removed from site. Attempts to find alternative work. No pay in the meantime. No actual dismissal – Appeal allowed.

Judges:

Peter Clark J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0067 – 10 – 0605

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 95(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.416035

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS: Worker, employee or neither
Hospital bank porter. Whether an employee? Absence of mutuality of obligations. Prater (CA) and N.W. Probation v Edwards (EAT) distinguished. Employment Tribunal entitled to find he was not employed under a succession of short engagements. He could, on the facts, be sent home during a shift if no longer required to work, without pay, for the remainder of the shift.

Judges:

Peter Clark J

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0021 – 09 – 2404

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Drake v Ipsos Mori UK Ltd EAT 25-Jul-2012
drake_ipsosEAT2012
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Worker, employee or neither
The Claimant worked for the Respondent as a market researcher under a succession of individual assignments. The Employment Judge erred in law in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.346599

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS
Extension of time: reasonably practicable
2002 Act and pre-action requirements
An Employment Tribunal is entitled to hold that it is not reasonably practicable for a Claimant to present a dismissal claim while an internal procedure is ongoing, anticipating reliance on Regulation 15 of the 2004 Regulations. Such a finding can also cover a short period of time before the deadline expires: see Ashcroft.
Separately, Regulation 15 is directly applicable only when the Claimant reasonably believes, up to the expiry of the three month deadline, that a procedure is ongoing. The deadline is then extended to six months. It has no application except to give the one-off extension from three to six months.
When an internal appeal failed eight months after dismissal, reliance could not be placed on Reg 15 itself, or indirectly to say it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in the first three months. Case remitted.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0452 – 08 – 1602

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: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.342104

EAT Contract of Employment – Notice and pay in lieu
Practice and Procedure – Perversity
Appeal against the judgment of an Employment Tribunal Chairman sitting alone rejected on the basis that there was adequate factual material to enable the Chairman to reach his conclusions. Neither was the judgment perverse. Cross appeal dismissed on the same grounds.

Citations:

[2007] UKEAT 0326 – 07 – 1412

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.342115

EAT CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT: Whether established
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity
The Employment Tribunal held that the Claimant was an employee and not a casual worker. This finding was open to the Employment Tribunal on the facts.
One of the Respondents asserted that he had been excluded from the Tribunal without good cause, but adduced no evidence to support this contention.
Appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0428 – 08 – 2901

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.342103

Where the employer wrongly characterises the statutory reasons as one of conduct he is not prevented from relying on the correct statutory reason where the essential issues are known to both parties. The Tribunal was said to have alighted on a particular phrase in the letter of dismissal, which it construed, wrongly on the facts, as the reason for dismissal, thus ignoring what all parties had regarded as the reason for dismissal up to that intervention.
Held: For the Employment Tribunal wrongly to classify the reason for dismissal amounts to an error of law. Buxton LJ said: ‘I do not think it is possible to say confidently in this case that if the matter is remitted on the basis that this court has indicated, it is inevitable that an industrial jury will consider that Mr. Wilson was fairly dismissed.’

Judges:

Buxton LJ, Hooper J

Citations:

[2000] EWCA Civ 3036, [2000] IRLR 834

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Victoria and Albert Museum v Durrant EAT 5-Jan-2011
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL
Reason for dismissal including some other substantial reason
The correct interpretation of section 106 of Employment Rights Act 1996 (‘the Act’) was considered.
The . .
Cited – F and G Cleaners v Saddington and Others EAT 16-Aug-2012
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Mitigation of loss
The Claimants worked for Respondent 1 who supplied window cleaning services under contract to a local authority. The contract was subject to a re-tendering process; . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.342143

EAT Unfair dismissal – Constructive dismissal – Dismissal/ambiguous resignation – Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason – Automatically unfair reasons
Dismissal or resignation. The interpretation of s.57A ERA 1996. Mistaken belief employee had resigned when may in fact have been a fair reason for dismissal. 1-2 months off work to care for dependants – held unreasonable under s.57A ERA. Case remitted on facts.

Judges:

Nelson J

Citations:

[2007] UKEAT 0470 – 07 – 0711

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 57A, Maternity and Paternal Leave Regulations 1999 20

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Ely v YKK Fasteners (UK) Ltd CA 15-Jul-1993
Belief that an employee had resigned was sufficient to justify dismissal. The expression of a wish to resign is capable of being ‘some other substantial reason for dismissal’.
If an employer mistakenly does not know of a valid reason for a . .
Cited – Qua v John Ford Morrison (Solicitors) EAT 14-Jan-2003
The claimant appealed the refusal of her claim for a finding that her dismissal was automatically unfair. She had been employed for less than a year, and had taken several absences to care for her child. She claimed protection saying that her . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.342113

EAT Unfair dismissal – Reasonableness of dismissal
Where an employee is long-term absent on grounds of ill health, and his pension scheme contains provisions entitling him to an ill health pension on grounds of permanent incapacity, an employer will generally be expected to give consideration to ill health retirement before dismissing for incapacity.
The Tribunal did not err in law in approaching the case on that basis, and further it did not err in law in holding that it was unreasonable for the employer to give the employee an ultimatum whereby it would retain him if he agreed to make no application for ill health retirement and dismiss him if he did not agree.

Judges:

Richardson J

Citations:

[2007] UKEAT 0246 – 07 – 2011, [2008] IRLR 182

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – J Sainsbury Ltd v Hitt; Orse Sainsburys Supermarkets Limited v Hitt CA 18-Oct-2002
Reasobaleness of Investigation Judged Objectively
The employer appealed against a decision that it had unfairly dismissed the respondent. The majority of the Employment Tribunal had decided that the employers had not carried out a reasonable investigation into the employee’s alleged misconduct . .
Cited – Spencer v Paragon Wallpapers Ltd 1976
The court set out what was expected of an employer undertaking a dismissal on ill-health grounds. Philips J emphasised the importance of scrutinising all the relevant factors:- ‘Every case depends on its own circumstances. The basis question which . .
Cited – Alexander and Hatherley v Bridgen Enterprises Ltd EAT 12-Apr-2006
The company made selections for redundancy, but failed to give the appellants information about how the scoring system had resulted in the figures allocated. The calculations left their representative unable to challenge them on appeal. The . .
Cited – Aspden v Webbs Poultry and Meat Group (Holdings) Limited QBD 1996
The employer had provided a permanent health scheme for directors and senior managers, which included the complainant. After its introduction the complainant, who up to that point had no written contract of employment, entered into a written . .
Cited – Brompton v AOC International Limited v Unum Limited CA 25-Jun-1997
Where an employer uses insurance policies for the benefit of employees there is an implied duty on the part of the employer to use its best endeavours to ensure that the insurance company gives proper consideration to the employees’ claims. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.342114

Judges:

Sir Peter Gibson

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 1378

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341720

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Time for appealing
The Respondent who did not lodge a response in time was the subject of a default Judgment. He did not appear on his application for a Review. He did not appeal the substantive order against him. His appeal against a further review was four days out of time and on his acceptance that there was no excuse, there was no reason to extend time or to review the compensation and costs orders against him. Appeal dismissed with costs.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 1261 – 08 – 1103

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341247

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL: Constructive dismissal
The Employment Tribunal did not approach the question of constructive unfair dismissal in a last straw case by reference to the steps in Omilaju. To take an analytic approach and ask of each event whether the Claimant had proved a breach or fundamental breach of contract was an error. Appeal allowed. Remitted to a fresh Employment Tribunal. ACAS recommended.

Judges:

McMullen QC HHJ

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0361 – 08 – 1603, [2010] IRLR 451

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 95(1)(c)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Muschett v Parkwood Healthcare EAT 18-Jun-2007
EAT Practice and Procedure – Application /Claim – Amendment – 2002 Act and Pre-action Requirements
The Claimant’s ET1, presented during his employment, made reference to numerous complaints but did not . .
Cited – Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp CA 1978
To succeed in a claim for constructive dismissal the plaintiff must establish a breach of contract by the defendant, that the breach was sufficiently serious to have justified the claimant resigning, or at least be the last in a series of events . .
Cited – Lewis v Motorworld Garages Ltd CA 1985
The court considered the circumstances under which an employee might resign and successfully claim constructive dismissal.
Glidewell LJ said: ‘This breach of this implied obligation of trust and confidence may consist of a series of action on . .
Cited – London Borough of Waltham Forest v Omilaju CA 11-Nov-2004
Final Straw Act – Non-Trivial
The claimant had been involved in protracted disputes with the respondent. The respondent appealed a finding of constructive dismissal and victimisation. He had attended a tribunal hearing and the employer had refused to pay his salary whilst he was . .
Cited – GAB Robins (UK) Ltd v Triggs EAT 13-Jun-2007
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL
Constructive dismissal
Compensation
Last straw constructive unfair dismissal. Last straw; employer’s failure to deal properly with her grievance – Constructive dismissal . .
Applied – Sinclair Roche and Temperley and others v Heard and Another EAT 22-Jul-2004
EAT Sex discrimination claim by former partners against the partnership and individual partners: direct discrimination (in both cases) and indirect discrimination (in one) found by ET.
(i) ET must, if . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341248

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Costs
No evidence or submissions were addressed to the Employment Judge as to any considerations to be taken into account under Rule 41(2) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 in considering whether to and if so in what amount to make a costs order. Such points cannot now be taken on appeal. Jones v Governing Body of Burdett Coutts School [1998] IRLR 521 applied.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0462 – 08 – 2301

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.337758

EAT CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT
JURISDICTIONAL POINTS: Worker, employee or neither
Tribunal, having issued an order dismissing the claim against a respondent on 5 November 2007, made an order at a case management discussion on 14 December 2007, sisting them as the respondent in the case. On appeal by the respondent, held that the tribunal had no power to sist the respondent as a party to the case after it had pronounced the order of dismissal. Claim dismissed.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0040 – 08 – 0801

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.337759

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL: Constructive dismissal
Grievance procedure; whether reasonable for employers to refrain from progressing it whilst employee off work due to ill health in circumstances where employee in fact fully recovered but GP signing certificates finding the employee unfit for work on a diagnosis of stress. Parties also agreed that resignation letter not received by employers. Tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly constructively dismissed. On appeal, held that the tribunal had erred. There had been no effective dismissal, the Tribunal had not addressed the correct question in law when considering whether or not the claimant had been constructively dismissed and proceeded on the basis of assumptions that were not founded in fact.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0038 – 08 – 0701

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.337757

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL: Procedural fairness/automatically unfair dismissal,br />PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke
Unfair dismissal – redundancy – automatic unfair dismissal – whether Appellant raising a new point of law not raised below – Jones v Governing Body of Burdett Coutts School (1998) IRLR 521 applied – Venneri v Autodex …2007) UKEAT/0436/07 distinguished.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0482 – 08 – 0704

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.331200

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS: 2002 Act and pre-action requirements
Raising a complaint in a County Court pleading does not constitute the making of a complaint for the purpose of the statutory grievance procedure.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0548 – 08 – 0202

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.331188

EAT UNLAWFUL DEDUCTION FROM WAGES
UNFAIR DISMISSAL: Contributory fault / Polkey deduction
The Employment Tribunal erred in its finding as to the number of occasions on which the Appellant worked days in addition to Fridays and Saturdays. This error is likely to have led to a miscalculation of the number of hours worked each week and of whether the National minimum wage had been paid. An error in the calculation of the number of hours worked would also affect the Appellant’s claim under the Employment Rights Act 1996 in respect of deductions from this weekly wage. Minimum wage and deduction from weekly wage claims were remitted to an Employment Tribunal. The appeal against nil basic and compensatory awards for unfair dismissal was dismissed.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0225 – 08 – 1501

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.331187

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL: Reasonableness of dismissal
Employee dismissed for deliberately breaking the IRIS screen in her buffet car on one of the Appellant’s trains. The Employment Tribunal found that the Appellant had failed to satisfy two of the limbs of Burchell [1978] IRLR 379. Various grounds of appeal affecting the Tribunal’s reasoning. Appeal dismissed on the basis that the Tribunal was entitled to come to the conclusions it did on the evidence before it.

Judges:

Birtles J

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0295 – 08 – 0204

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – J Sainsbury Ltd v Hitt; Orse Sainsburys Supermarkets Limited v Hitt CA 18-Oct-2002
Reasobaleness of Investigation Judged Objectively
The employer appealed against a decision that it had unfairly dismissed the respondent. The majority of the Employment Tribunal had decided that the employers had not carried out a reasonable investigation into the employee’s alleged misconduct . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.331203

Citations:

[2000] UKEAT 509 – 98 – 1804

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.265037

Judges:

His Honour Judge Mcmullen QC

Citations:

[2006] UKEAT 0274 – 06 – 2610

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.247813

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 391

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.200870

Citations:

[1992] UKEAT 183 – 90 – 0705

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.210983

Citations:

[1991] UKEAT 41 – 90 – 2009

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.211259

It is an implied term in a contract of employment that employers should reasonably and promptly afford employees a reasonable opportunity to obtain redress of any grievance. Morison J said: ‘It is clear therefore that Parliament considered that good industrial relations requires employers to provide their employees with a method of dealing with grievances in a proper and timeous fashion. This is also consistent of course with the Codes of Practice. That being so the industrial tribunal was entitled in our judgment to conclude that there was an implied term in the contract of employment that the employers would reasonably and promptly afford a reasonable opportunity to their employees to obtain redress and any grievance they may have. It was in our judgment rightly conceived that the industrial tribunal that such could be a breach of contract: see paragraph 11.’

Judges:

Morison J

Citations:

[1995] UKEAT 489 – 94 – 2804, [1995] IRLR 516

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Hamilton v Tandberg Televison Ltd EAT 12-Dec-2002
The applicant claimed unfair constructive dismissal.
Held: The appeal failed. McMullen QC J said: ‘It is suggested that the Employment Tribunal erred in law in failing to condemn the investigation. The standard against which investigation . .
Cited – Claridge v Daler Rowney Ltd EAT 4-Jul-2008
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL: Constructive dismissal
The Employment Tribunal held the employee had not been constructively dismissed. One of the complaints related to defects in the handling of the grievance . .
Cited – Sweetin v Coral Racing EAT 20-Dec-2005
EAT Claimant sought compensation for unfair constructive dismissal and failure to consult prior to a TUPE transfer of a bookmaker’s business for which the claimant worked. Her contract of employment described her . .
Cited – Watson v University of Strathclyde EAT 1-Feb-2011
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Constructive dismissal
Apparent bias. Whether Employment Tribunal had erred in failing to find that there was apparent bias where a member of the panel (the University Secretary) . .
Cited – Waltons and Morse v Dorrington EAT 19-May-1997
The employee had complained of her working conditions, particularly at having to work in an environment polluted by others smoking.
Held: The correct term to be implied into her contract of employment to deal with the complaint in this case, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.209060

Citations:

[1997] UKEAT 1262 – 96 – 1002

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.207241

Application for leave to appeal.

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 334

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.200862

(Judgment) Officials – Promotion – Action for annulment.

Citations:

T-175/02, [2004] EUECJ T-175/02

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Employment

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.195060

(Judgment) Officials – Promotion – Statement of reasons – Action for annulment.

Citations:

T-4/03, [2004] EUECJ T-4/03

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Employment

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.195062

In a case of constructive dismissal, the ordinary contractual rule applies; the wronged party may give the other party an opportunity to remedy the breach. In doing so he does not waive the breach and thereby affirm the contract.
Browne-Wilkinson P said: ‘Although we were not referred to the cases outside the field of employment law, our own researches have led us to the view that the general principles applicable to a repudiation of contract are as follows. If one party (‘the guilty party’) commits a repudiatory breach of the contract, the other party (‘the innocent party’) can choose one of two courses: he can affirm the contract and insist on its further performance or he can accept the repudiation, in which case the contract is at an end. The innocent party must at some stage elect between these two possible courses: if he once affirms the contract, his right to accept the repudiation is at an end. But he is not bound to elect within a reasonable or any other time. Mere delay by itself ( unaccompanied by an express or applied affirmation of the contract) does not constitute affirmation of the contract; but if it is prolonged it may be evidence of an implied affirmation. … Affirmation of the contract can be implied. Thus, if the innocent party calls on the guilty party for further performance of the contract, he will normally be taken to have affirmed the contract since his conduct is only consistent with the continued existence of the contractual obligation. Moreover, if the innocent party himself does acts which are only consistent with the continued existence of the contract, such acts will normally show affirmation of the contract. However, if the innocent party further performs the contract to a limited extent but at the same time makes it clear that he is reserving his right to accept the repudiation or in only continuing so as to allow the guilty party to remedy the breach, such further performance does not prejudice his right subsequently to accept the repudiation.’

Judges:

Browne-Wilkinson P

Citations:

[1981] IRLR 443, [1981] ICR 823

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Farnworth Finance Facilities Ltd v Attryde 1970
Mr A bought a motor-cycle on hire-purchase. Mr Attryed had ridden this bicycle for 4,000 miles. Even after he got it back from the makers he had used for five or six weeks and had ridden 3,000 miles on it. He had complained from the beginning of the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Bruce Anchor (Scotland) Ltd v Turbert EAT 7-Sep-2001
The employer appealed a decision that they had constructively dismissed the claimant. They said that by delaying her resignation, she had affirmed the contract. She had been off work and expected to return only after a length of time for . .
Cited – Bournemouth University Higher Education Corp v Buckland EAT 8-May-2009
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL: Constructive dismissal
Whether fundamental breach of implied term of trust and confidence cured, so that the Claimant’s resignation did not amount to constructive dismissal.
Cited – Buckland v Bournemouth University Higher Education Corporation CA 24-Feb-2010
The claimant had been dismissed from his post as chair of archeology after criticism of his marking practices. Though a report vindicated him, the respondent continued with disciplinary procedures. He claimed unfair dismissal. The EAT had allowed . .
Applied – Fereday v South Staffordshire NHS Primary Care Trust EAT 22-Jul-2011
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Constructive dismissal
The Claimant considered that she was treated in a way which was in fundamental breach of her contract of employment. She invoked the grievance procedure, which . .
Cited – Waltons and Morse v Dorrington EAT 19-May-1997
The employee had complained of her working conditions, particularly at having to work in an environment polluted by others smoking.
Held: The correct term to be implied into her contract of employment to deal with the complaint in this case, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.181814

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Other

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Holland

Citations:

EAT/32/02

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.174157

The TUPE regulations do not stop a dismissal of employees (though it still might constitute unfair dismissals) before a relevant transfer of an undertaking.

Citations:

Times 18-Jul-1997, Gazette 03-Sep-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 2079

Statutes:

Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (1981 No 1794)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.142476

(New South Wales)

Citations:

[1898] UKPC 20

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Employment

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.417148

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Costs
Partial costs order by Employment Tribunal. Illogical to award Counsel’s fee but not solicitors’ costs. Appeal allowed. Costs below and in Employment Appeal Tribunal assessed

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0155 – 09 – 2105

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.347185

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL: Reasonableness of dismissal
An Employment Tribunal erred as it focussed upon a decision made by the employer to negotiate a settlement under a procedure leading to a lesser penalty than dismissal. The procedure broke down and at a fair and reasonable hearing the disciplinary panel decided to dismiss the Claimant. The Employment Tribunal wrongly substituted its view for the employer’s in deciding the matters put against the Claimant did not justify dismissal. The Employment Tribunal while misdirecting itself on the burden of proof under ERA s98(4) did not actually apply that misdirection when it made the decision on the reasonableness of the dismissal.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0479 – 08 – 2703, [2009] IRLR 512

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 98(4)

Cited by:

Appeal from – Sarkar v West London Mental Health NHS Trust CA 19-Mar-2010
The doctor had been summarily dismissed for gross misconduct. He now appealed against the EAT’s reversal of the finding of unfair dismissal. The original procedure adopted was appropriate to a lesser level of misconduct, but the employer had later . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.328011

EAT WORKING TIME REGULATIONS: Worker / Holiday Pay
Mr Victor Jozsa (‘the claimant’) entered into a written agreement dated 1 January 2006 with Premier Groundworks Ltd (‘the respondent’) to provide groundwork services. By Clause 13 of the agreement it was provided that:-
‘[the claimant] shall have the right to delegate performance of [ground works] services under this agreement to other persons whether or not his employees provided that [the respondent] is notified in advance and provided that any such person is at least capable experienced and qualified as [the claimant] himself.’
The Employment Tribunal found that the agreement was not a sham and held that the claimant was a ‘worker’ within the meaning of Regulation 2(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 (‘WTR’) and was entitled to holiday pay. The issue on the appeal was whether the claimant was a ‘worker’ with in the meaning of the WTR.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal. It held that:-
(1) where as in this case a party has an unfettered right not to personally perform the contractual obligations under contract but can delegate them for any reason to someone else, he cannot be a ‘worker’ as defined in the WTR even though the person actually performing the contractual obligations has to meet certain conditions (Express and Echo Publications Ltd v Tanton [1999] IRLR 367 applies);
(2) The position would be different if the right not to perform the contractual obligations depended on some other event such as whether that party was unable to perform his or her obligations (MacFarlane and Another v Glasgow City Council [2001] IRLR 7 and James v Redcats (Brands) Ltd [2007] IRLR 296).
(3) An additional reason why the claimant was not a ‘worker’ as defined in the WTR was that the respondent was not an entity ‘whose status is not by virtue of that contract that of a ..customer of a . . business undertaking carried on by the individual [namely the claimant]’. The reasons for that were that the claimant was obliged to send invoices to the respondents, the claimant was referred to throughout the agreement as the ‘supplier’ and the preamble stated that the claimant ‘carries on business as a groundworker… and in the course of business provides services to other building concerns’.

Judges:

Silber J

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0494 – 08 – 1703

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – UK Mail Ltd v Creasey EAT 26-Sep-2012
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Worker, employee or neither
As a matter of construction of the contract, the Claimant was not required to perform work personally since he had an unfettered right to send others, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.323714

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS
Claim in time and effective date of termination
2002 Act and pre-action requirements
STATUTORY DISCIPLINE AND GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES
Whether infringed
EDT – Step 1 Grievance – Continuing act (limitation).

Citations:

[2008] UKEAT 0352 – 08 – 1212

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 108(1)

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: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.317885

EAT TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS: Consultation and other information
TUPE 2006. (1) Whether Tribunal had erred in refusing to allow UCATT to amend its claim to add an allegation of failure to inform in accordance with reg.13(2) in addition to its existing allegation of failure to consult. (2) Whether regulations require a transferee employer to consult with transferred employees post transfer regarding measures it envisages in relation to them.
On appeal, EAT found that the Tribunal had not erred in refusing to allow UCATT to amend its claim. Further, it agreed with the Tribunal that the transferee employers were not obliged to consult with the transferred employees post transfer. Proposal that there should be a reference to the ECJ rejected.

Judges:

Lady Smith

Citations:

[2008] UKEAT 0007 – 08 – 1911, [2009] ICR 852, [2009] IRLR 253

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: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.317883

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Review / Perversity
Appeal against a refusal of a review. The Appellant did not appear at the Full Hearing and produced no medical evidence in support of his application by email for an adjournment. Neither did he appear at the Preliminary Hearing. His appeal was on the ground of perversity. No evidence was submitted at any time to support his case that the refusal of a review was perverse. Appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2008] UKEAT 0171 – 08 – 0411

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.317881

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Postponement or stay
Appeal allowed against the refusal of an Employment Judge to postpone a two day hearing of a claim of unfair dismissal and race discrimination. The Employment Judge has failed to take into account that the reason for the request for a postponement was the absence abroad of the Respondent’s two key witnesses. Their absence might fatally harm the Respondent’s case.

Judges:

Birtles J

Citations:

[2008] UKEAT 0532 – 08 – 1012

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.317884

EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION: Disability
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Striking-out/dismissal
The Employment Judge correctly struck out the Claimant’s case as it was not reasonably arguable, on the evidence at a PHR, that the Claimant’s intolerance to temperatures below 27C was a disability within the DDA 1995.

Citations:

[2008] UKEAT 0133 – 08 – 2608

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.317871

EAT UNLAWFUL DEDUCTION FROM WAGES
A deduction of andpound;65,000 from untaxed bonus earnings of a trader indicated by the HMRC under threat of enforcement is an excepted deduction under Employment Rights Act 1996 s14(3), which applies not simply to formal determinations under PAYE Regulation 80 but to other decisions. The employer was bound to make the deduction which was authorised.

Citations:

[2008] UKEAT 0190 – 08 – 0309

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 14(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.317874

EAT CONSTRUCTIVE UNFAIR DISMISSAL
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
Direct disability discrimination/Disability related discrimination/ Reasonable adjustments
The Claimant claimed constructive unfair dismissal and disability discrimination, taking the form of direct discrimination, disability related discrimination and the failure to make reasonable adjustments. The Respondent contended it did not dismiss her, for she took early retirement and she was treated no differently from any other person within its employ. Deposit and corresponding costs orders were made. Employment Tribunal Judgment upheld. Retirement which terminates a contract of employment by mutual consent does not fall within the Employment Rights Act 1996 s95(1)(c). Malcolm would be followed in preference to Clark v Novacold although full argument on a new point of appeal was not advanced.

Citations:

[2008] UKEAT 0204 – 08 – 2409

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 95(1)(c)

Citing:

Cited – London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm HL 25-Jun-2008
Unrelated Detriment was no Discrimination
The tenant had left his flat and sublet it so as to allow the landlord authority an apparently unanswerable claim for possession. The authority appealed a finding that they had to take into account the fact that the tenant was disabled and make . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.317873

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL: Compensation/Mitigation of loss
The employee was unfairly constructively dismissed. She was entitled to a 6 month notice period that was not paid by the employees in that period, during some of which she received payments for temporary work from a different employer. The ET, applying Norton Tool and Burlo, did not give credit for those payments against compensation for loss of earnings in this notice period.
The employers argued on appeal that the principle in Norton Tool had never been held to apply and should not now be held to apply a case of constructive dismissal.
Held: (i) that the principle in Norton Tool, however controversial and despite Dunnachie, had been approved in Burlo
(ii) there was no reason why that principle should not apply to constructive dismissal. The assessment of compensation, irrespective of the type of dismissal, is to be made under section 123 of ERA: and that principle goes to how compensation under 123 is assessed.

Judges:

Burke QC HHJ

Citations:

[2008] UKEAT 0272 – 08 – 2210, [2009] ICR 453

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 95(1)(a) 123

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Norton Tool Co Ltd v Tewson NIRC 30-Oct-1972
(National Industrial Relations Court) The court was asked to calculate damages on a dismissal, and particularly as to whether the manner of the dismissal should affect the damages.
Held: The common law rules and authorities on wrongful . .
Cited – Burlo v Langley and Carter CA 21-Dec-2006
The claimant had been employed by the defendants as a nanny. She threatened to leave, but then was injured in a car acident and given a sick note. The employer immediately engaged someone else. She was found to have been unfairly dismissed. The . .
Cited – TBA Industrial Products Ltd v Locke EAT 1984
The employee had been unfairly dismissed with 12 weeks pay in lieu of notice.
Held: The court re-affirmed the narrow principle of Norton Tool v Tewson. Browne Wilkinson J P said: ‘It seems to us that the decision in the Tradewinds [1981] IRLR . .
Cited – Dunnachie v Kingston-upon-Hull City Council HL 15-Jul-2004
The claimant sought damages following his dismissal to include a sum to reflect the manner of his dismissal and the distress caused.
Held: The remarks of Lord Hoffmann in Johnson -v- Unysis were obiter. The court could not, under the section, . .
Cited – Babcock FATA Ltd v Addison CA 1987
The employee was unfairly dismissed for redundancy. He was given 5 weeks pay in lieu, a statutory redundancy payment and a severance payment under the employers’ own scheme. He did not obtain another job until well after his period of notice had . .
Cited – Shaw v The Port Phillip and Colonial Gold Mining Company Ltd 1884
A company secretary was to procure execution of certificates of shares in accordance with prescribed formalities. A certificate was issued and presented by the secretary in favour of a purchaser in the usual form with signature of director and . .
Cited – Ruben v Great Fingall Consolidated HL 1906
The company secretary, to pursue a fraudulent objective of his own, presented to innocent lenders a share certificate appearing to be that of the company and appearing to be signed by two directors as well as by the secretary. However, the seal had . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Stuart Peters Ltd v Bell CA 30-Jul-2009
The claimant had a contract entitling her to six month’s notice. She left claiming constructive dismissed, but found work shortly after. She still sought the full six months’ pay. The EAT found in her favour. The employer appealed.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.317878

EAT UNLAWFUL DEDUCTION FROM WAGES
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity
Unlawful deductions claim (sick pay). The Claimant put in written representations under Employment Tribunal Rule 14(5). The Respondent changed factual basis of defence 3 days before hearing. Whether procedural unfairness in proceeding with hearing. If so, whether result plainly and unarguably correct since no factual issue then arose.

Citations:

[2008] UKEAT 0318 – 08 – 2910

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.317876

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL
Procedural fairness/automatically unfair dismissal
S.98A(2) ERA
Polkey deduction
The employee was told at a meeting that he or his post would be made redundant at a meeting; but he was not then made redundant; further meetings followed before he was given notice of dismissal. The Employment Tribunal found (1) that the dismissal was automatically unfair because that meeting did not comply with the Step 2 requirements and there had not been a Step 1 complaint letter (2) that the dismissal was substantively unfair (3) that there was no evidence and only assertion that the employer would have been dismissed anyway.
Held on appeal :
(1) (i) The ET erred in law in failing to consider the subsequent meetings prior to the dismissal in deciding that Step 2 was not complied with; no action was taken before these meetings; the Employment Tribunal was bound to pay heed to them. The meaning of ‘action taken’ discussed and decided.
(ii) The ET erred in setting too high a standard for the requirements of a Step 1 letter; they failed to consider the guidance on that topic in Alexander v Bridgen.
(2) The Employment Tribunal were entitled to find the dismissal substantively unfair; there was no error of law.
(3) There was evidence, oral and documentary to support the employer’s case that the employee was not suitable for the only post in which he was interested. The Tribunal erred in law in concluding to the contrary.
Claim remitted on issues (1) and (3) to a fresh Employment Tribunal.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0245 – 08 – 0503

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 98A(2)

Citing:

Cited – Software 2000 Ltd v Andrews etc EAT 17-Jan-2007
EAT Four employees successfully established before the Employment Tribunal that they had been unfairly dismissed for redundancy. The Tribunal found that there had been procedural defects. In particular the . .

Cited by:

Distinguished – Roberts v Acumed Ltd EAT 25-Nov-2010
roberts_acumedEAT10
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL
Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason
Reasonableness of dismissal
Procedural fairness/automatically unfair dismissal
The Claimant area sales manager . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.317868

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Striking-out/dismissal
Claim dismissed at pre hearing review when claimant did not appear and provided no justification for failing to do so. Review refused. Claimant appealed against both original and review decisions. On appeal; although there was, in the circumstances, a strong case for striking out the claimant’s claim as his unjustified non-attendance could be seen as a failure to actively pursue it and his conduct had been unreasonable, since the procedure required by rules 18(7) and 19 of the ET rules had not been followed, the appeal had to be allowed. Claim remitted to the Employment Tribunal to fix a further pre-hearing review.

Citations:

[2008] UKEAT 0025 – 08 – 3010

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.317877

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 law. All other issues were adjourned.
The Employment Tribunal found that the Step 1 letter was insufficient because it did not inform the employee that he was at risk of dismissal. It was argued that the statutory procedure did not so require and that the conclusion to the opposite effect in Alexandra v Brigden [2006] ICR 1277 and HomeServe v Dixon 0122/07/CEA were obiter.
The court held that the conclusions, albeit obiter at least in Alexander, were correct and should be followed. The Tribunal’s decision was upheld.

Judges:

Burke QC J

Citations:

[2008] UKEAT 0294 – 08 – 2410

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 2002

Citing:

Applied – Alexander and Hathersley v Bridgen Enterprises Ltd EAT 29-Mar-2006
The EAT considered the effect of an employer’s failure to comply with the statutory procedures in a redundancy.
Held: ‘there is an automatically unfair dismissal where there is a failure fully to comply with any relevant statutory procedure. . .
Cited – Homeserve Emergency Services Ltd v Dixon EAT 27-Jun-2007
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL
Procedural Fairness/Automatically unfair dismissal
Contributory Fault
Automatically unfair dismissal (ERA. s.98A (1). Whether step 1 and step 2 DDP complied with. Basic award; . .
Cited – YMCA Training v Stewart EAT 6-Dec-2006
EAT Unfair dismissal – Polkey deduction/ Automatically unfair reasons
Employment Tribunal wrong to find breaches of ‘step 1’ and ‘step 2’ of statutory dismissal procedure and accordingly wrong to find . .

Cited by:

See Also – Zimmer Ltd v Brezan EAT 3-Apr-2009
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.317879

EAT SEX DISCRIMINATION: Burden of proof
VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION: Other forms of victimisation
The Employment Tribunal made findings of fact that an Equal Pay Act questionnaire was linked to earlier dissatisfaction and so played a part in the Respondent’s decision to dismiss. This was a protected act. The Employment Tribunal correctly applied the burden of proof.

Citations:

[2008] UKEAT 0195 – 08 – 2107

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.317870

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL: Compensation
Only issues were (i) the extent of any Polkey deduction and (ii) compensation. Tribunal found that there was a 51% chance of the claimant retaining his employment had the appropriate procedures been followed but that that would have been on the basis of a lower salary. Compensation assessed on the basis of the lower salary not on the basis of the higher, pre dismissal salary. On appeal in which the only issue was the approach to the assessment of compensation, held that the tribunal had not erred in proceeding on the basis of the lower salary.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0045 – 08 – 0701

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.304517

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE Application/claim
Tribunal wrong to refuse to accept complaint presented against company in administration – correct course to accept the complaint but stay it – Carr v British International Helicopter [1994] ICR18 followed.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0513 – 08 – 0902

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Applied – Carr v British International Helicopter EAT 1993
An employee claimed re-instatement following alleged unfair selection for redundancy by an administrator.
Held: The effect of the 1986 Act was not that proceedings brought against a company in administration without consent or the permission . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.304526

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Appearance/response
Striking-out/dismissal
Default Judgment: no response entered by Respondent company (in administration) within 28 day period. Judgment entered on liability; part of the Claimant’s claim not well-founded.
Appeal allowed. Default judgment procedure designed to allow judgment to be entered in favour of Claimant, in an appropriate case; not in favour of Respondent who is in default. That part of default judgment set aside and case remitted for hearing on its merits.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0543 – 08 – 2301

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.304516

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL: Reasonableness of dismissal
Employee refusal to consent to disclosure of medical records for purpose of medical examination by OHS doctor. Whether dismissal fair. Employment Tribunal held that internal appeal corrected earlier procedural defect. Dismissal fair. Appeal dismissed.

Judges:

Peter Clark J

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0469 – 08 – 2001

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: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.304515