Category: Employment

A V Melia v Magna Kansei Ltd: CA 4 Nov 2005

The court considered the damages to be awarded to a whistle blower on dismissal.
Held: The employee was entitled to damages for injuries to his feelings up to the point of his dismissal. Where there was available any adjustment in respect of any advanced payment there should equally be an increase in rate for any delay in payment.

Citations:

Times 14-Nov-2005, [2005] EWCA Civ 1547

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Damages

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235147

Gryf-Lowczowski v Hinchingbrooke Healthcare NHS Trust: QBD 2 Nov 2005

In the course of an application for an interim injunction to prevent the Defendant dismissing the Claimant until disciplinary proceedings had been completed, the Judge considered the adequacy of damages as an alternative remedy: ‘On the other hand, if no injunctive relief is granted and if (as seems likely) the Trust does summarily dismiss Mr Gryf-Lowczowski, he would be confined to a claim for damages for wrongful or unfair dismissal. The former would be limited to the contractual notice period of three months; the latter is statutorily capped at andpound;56,000. I am unable to accept that in the circumstances of the present case such a remedy in damages is adequate.’

Judges:

Gray J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 2407 (QB), (2006) 87 BMLR 46, [2006] IRLR 100, [2006] Lloyd’s Rep Med 199, [2006] ICR 425

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust QBD 31-Jul-2009
The claimant, a consultant surgeon had been subject to disciplinary proceedings by his employer. They were however conducted in a manner which breached his contract. The GMC had summarily dismissed the same allegations. The claimant now appealed . .
Followed – Kircher v Hillingdon Primary Care Trust QBD 13-Jan-2006
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Health Professions, Damages

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235126

Cook v South Thames (Wholesale): EAT 25 Oct 2005

Unfair Dismissal and Race Discrimination
When considering on a claim for unfair dismissal by reason of redundancy, the Tribunal gave no reasons relating to section 98(4) except on the Polkey issue.
The Tribunal did not err in law in rejecting a claim of race discrimination.

Judges:

Richardson HHJ

Citations:

[2005] UKEAT 0349 – 05 – 2510

Links:

Bailii

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235053

Dodd v The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi Ltd: EAT 30 Sep 2005

EAT Practice and Procedure – Appellate jurisdiction/Reasons/Burns-Barke.
When a Judgment of an Employment Tribunal was not received by the Claimant’s solicitor until the 42nd day after its promulgation, due to no fault of the solicitor, and all reasonable steps were taken to ensure a Notice of Appeal was filed within 14 days thereafter, it was right, following a contested hearing with live evidence explaining the circumstances, to exercise discretion to allow it to be validated.

Judges:

His Honour Judge McMullen QC

Citations:

UKEATPA/0480/05, [2005] UKEAT 0480 – 05 – 3009

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235047

Kelly v Riveroak Associates Ltd: EAT 31 Oct 2005

EAT Unfair Dismissal
Appellant alleged dismissal by service of P45 on 3 April: Respondent alleged resignation by Appellant on 7 February. ET concluded that employment continued until 4 June, and thus claim fell as premature. ET erred in failing to find that contract was terminated on 3 April, and should then have considered whether on the balance of probabilities there was a dismissal and if so whether it was (for a substantial other reason or otherwise) fair.

Judges:

Burton J P

Citations:

UKEAT/0290/05, [2005] UKEAT 0290 – 05 – 3110

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235055

Okugade v Shaw Trust: EAT 11 Aug 2005

Practice and Procedure: Amendment
In determining the Applicant’s application to amend his originating application so as to include allegations of post employment victimisation. Is it fatal in such an application that the instances of victimisation (or his knowledge of them) post dates the receipt of the originating application by the Employment Tribunal.

Citations:

[2005] UKEAT 0172 – 05 – 1108

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Science Warehouse Ltd v Mills EAT 9-Oct-2015
EAT Practice and Procedure : Amendment – Amendment of an ET claim to add a new cause of action – ACAS Early Conciliation (Section 18A Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (as amended))
At a Preliminary Hearing, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235046

Mark Insulations Ltd v Bunker: EAT 21 Oct 2005

Contract of Employment
The Tribunal erred in law in holding (without first resolving the issue of fact disputed between Mrs Bunker and Mr Cottingham) that a contract of employment existed between 19 December and 5 January.
The Tribunal erred in law in, or failed to give adequate reasons, for its conclusion that there was an arrangement for the purposes of section 212(3)(c) ERA 1996 between those dates.

Judges:

Richardson J

Citations:

[2005] UKEAT 0331 – 05 – 2110

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235056

Sharp v Caledonia Group Services Ltd: EAT 1 Nov 2005

EAT Equal Pay Act – Material factor defence – In an equal pay claim involving a presumption of direct discrimination the genuine material factor defence requires justification by objective criteria.
The claimant appealed dismissal of her action for equal pay, saying that the ‘material factor’ defence used to justify a different payment had been incorrectly applied. It was suggested that the decision on Fernandez did not fit with the ECJ decisions leading up to Brunhoffer.
Held: The Brunhoffer case was to be preferred to Fernandez, since it ‘provides clear guidelines in equal pay cases as to the need for objective justification in all cases.’ In the case of a conflict between UK and European decisions on this subject the European Court should be preferred. ‘the Tribunal approached the genuine material factor defence on a subjective rather than objective view. ‘ and that decision would require a rehearing. When an employer raised in defence to amn action for sex discrimination a defence that there had been a material factor justifying the difference in pay it was for that employer to establish the existence of the condition objectively.
EAT In an equal pay claim involving a presumption of direct discrimination the genuine material factor defence requires justification by objective criteria.

Judges:

Ansell J

Citations:

UKEAT/0041/05, [2005] UKEAT 0041 – 05 – 0111, [2006] IRLR 4, [2006] ICR 218

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Equal Pay Act 1970 1(3), Sex Discrimination Act 1975 1

Citing:

Cited – Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Health Commissioner v J Fernandez EAT 11-Jun-2003
EAT Equal Pay Act – Article 141
The applicant began work as a case worker at a lower salary than a female case worker employed by different departments in the same office. The female case worker was . .
See Also – A Sharp v Caledonia Group Services Ltd EAT 18-Apr-2005
EAT Sex Discrimination – Direct.
EAT Equal Pay Act – Material factor defence. . .
Cited – Kumchyk v Derby County Council EAT 1978
The appellant sought to advance an argument that a certain term was implied into the contract of employment which, for its consideration, would have required consideration of a factual framework which had not been explored in evidence.
Held: . .
Cited – Ratcliffe and Others v North Yorkshire County Council HL 7-Jul-1995
Three school dinner ladies had been employed by the Council at National Rates of pay and conditions. Their work which was almost exclusively carried out by females had been rated as of equal value to that of men employed by the council at various . .
Cited – Macarthys Ltd v Smith ECJ 27-Mar-1980
The first paragraph of article 119 of the EEC Treaty applies directly, and without the need for more detailed implementing measures on the part of the community or the member states, to all forms of direct and overt discrimination which may be . .
Cited – Strathclyde Regional Council v Wallace HL 1988
Female teachers carried out the work of principal teachers but had not been appointed to the promoted post and were paid less than they would have received had they been so appointed. They claimed equal pay with male comparators who were appointed . .
Cited – Glasgow City Council and Others v Marshall and Others HL 8-Feb-2000
Although instructors in special schools, carried out work of a broadly similar nature to qualified teachers, and the majority were women, they were not entitled to an equality of pay clause, since there was no evidence of sex discrimination, and the . .
Cited – Tyldesley v TML Plastics Ltd EAT 23-Mar-1995
Mrs Tyldesley complained that she had been paid less than a male comparator. The employer said the reason for this was that the comparator understood and was committed to the concept of total quality management. The tribunal had found that in . .
Cited – Bilka-Kaufhaus v Webers Von Hartz ECJ 13-May-1986
ECJ An occupational pension scheme which, although established in accordance with statutory provisions, is based on an agreement between the employer and employee representatives constitutes an integral part of . .
Cited – Handels Og Kontorfunktionaerernes Forbund I Danmark v Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening, Acting On Behalf Of Danfoss. (Preliminary Questions ) ECJ 17-Oct-1989
Europa Where the law provides that an industrial arbitration board has jurisdiction in disputes between parties to collective agreements made between employees’ and employers’ organizations and either party may . .
Cited – Hill and Stapleton v The Department of Commissioners and Department of Finance ECJ 17-Jun-1998
Two female employees shared a job in the civil service during which time they each moved up one point in the incremental pay scale with each year of service and were paid fifty percent of the salary for clerical assistants. After two years they . .
Cited – Lawrence and others v Regent Office Care Ltd and Others ECJ 17-Sep-2002
The employees claimed sex discrimination, and sought to have as comparators, male employees of an employer who had previously employed some of them, before a TUPE transfer of the services supplied. The Court of Appeal referred to the court the . .
Cited – Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd EAT 6-Mar-2003
EAT Sex Discrimination – Inferring Discrimination
The claimant sought compenstion for sex discrimination. She appealed a finding of a material factor justifying the difference in pay.
Held: The new . .
Cited – Igen Ltd v Wong CA 18-Feb-2005
Proving Discrimination – Two Stage Process
Each appeal raised procedural issues in discrimination cases, asking where, under the new regulations, the burden of proof had shifted.
Held: The new situation required a two stage process before a complaint could be upheld. First the claimant . .
Cited – Autologic Holdings Plc and others v Commissioners of Inland Revenue HL 28-Jul-2005
Taxpayer companies challenged the way that the revenue restricted claims for group Corporation Tax relief for subsidiary companies in Europe. The issue was awaiting a decision of the European Court. The Revenue said that the claims now being made by . .
Cited – Enderby v Frenchay Health Authority and Another ECJ 27-Oct-1993
Discrimination – Shifting Burden of Proof
(Preliminary Ruling) A woman was employed as a speech therapist by the health authority. She complained of sex discrimination saying that at her level of seniority within the NHS, members of her profession which was overwhelmingly a female . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235060

Dias v Pelikon Ltd: EAT 9 Feb 2005

EAT Substantive Appeal on Race Discrimination dismissed on preliminary hearing. But allowed to go forward on costs because not clear ET took account of all factors especially circumstances of Appellant; having been dismissed without warning or consultation for redundancy, can be criticised that he searched in race discrimination for a reason. Referred to at very end of preliminary hearing judgment, from paragraph 36 onwards.

Judges:

Altman HHJ

Citations:

[2005] UKEAT 0833 – 04 – 0902, UKEAT/0833/04

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235029

Slaney v Culina Logistick Gmbh T/A Cullina Logistics: EAT 21 Oct 2005

EAT Disability Discrimination: Disability -and- Practice and Procedure: Review
New point allowed on appeal – deemed past disability under the Disability Discrimination Act, Schedule 1, para 7. Original judgment reviewable once the point was taken in review application. Appeal allowed: declaration Employment Tribunal have jurisdiction in Disability Discrimination Act claim.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Peter Clark

Citations:

UKEAT/0291/05, [2005] UKEAT 0291 – 05 – 2110, UKEAT/0292/05

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Citing:

Cited – Williams v Ferrosan Ltd EAT 5-Mar-2004
Acting on guidance, the parties representatives and the tribunal had assumed that part of the award relating to loss of future earnings would not be taxable. The question now was whether the tribunal had power of its own motion to review its . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.234765

Bacica v Muir: EAT 20 Sep 2005

EAT Working Time Regulations – Holiday pay – Working Time Regulations; holiday pay. Claimant sought holiday pay after working for respondent on a self employed basis. The tribunal held that he was a worker and entitled to receive holiday pay. The Employment Appeal Tribunal found that the tribunal had erred in their assessment of the evidence as to the circumstances of his employment which included that he worked under the CIS scheme, that he had and was free to work for other customers and had self employed accounts made up by an accountant. He did not qualify as a worker within the meaning of the regulations.

Judges:

The Honourable Lady Smith

Citations:

EATS/0004/05, [2005] UKEAT 0004 – 05 – 2009

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Employment, Scotland

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.234464

Hilton UK Hotels Ltd v McNaughton: EAT 20 Sep 2005

EAT Equal Pay Act – Article 141 – Damages/compensation
The claimant instituted a claim on the ground that she had been excluded from the respondents’ pension scheme during a period of part-time employment. The Employment Tribunal determined, as a preliminary issue, that a compromise agreement entered into between the parties did not have the effect of preventing the claimant from advancing her claim, considering the claimant’s solicitor’s lack of knowledge that the claimant had had a period of part-time employment as a key issue. The Employment Appeal Tribunal disagreed with the Employment Tribunal’s assessment of the claimant’s solicitor’s knowledge as being a key issue but found that, properly interpreted, the compromise agreement did not exclude the claim being advanced.

Judges:

Lady Smith

Citations:

[2005] UKEAT 0059 – 04 – 2009, EATS/0059/04

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Employment, Scotland

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.234467

Ferlini v Centre hospitalier de Luxembourg: ECJ 3 Oct 2000

ECJ A national of one Member State working in another Member State does not lose his status of worker within the meaning of Article 48(1) of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39(1) EC) through occupying a post within an international organisation, even if the rules relating to entry into and residence in the country in which he is employed are specifically governed by an international agreement. Accordingly, there can be no doubt that an EC official has the status of a migrant worker.
The first paragraph of Article 6 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, the first paragraph of Article 12 EC) also applies in cases where a group or organisation such as the Entente des hopitaux luxembourgeois exercises a certain power over individuals and is in a position to impose on them conditions which adversely affect the exercise of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed under the Treaty.
The application, on a unilateral basis, by a group of healthcare providers of a Member State to EC officials of scales of fees for medical and hospital maternity care which are higher than those applicable to residents affiliated to the national social security scheme of that State constitutes discrimination on the ground of nationality prohibited under the first paragraph of Article 6 of the EC Treaty, in the absence of objective justification in this respect. The criterion of affiliation to the national social security scheme, on which the differentiation of fees for medical and hospital care is based, constitutes indirect discrimination on the ground of nationality. First, the great majority of those affiliated to the Sickness Insurance Scheme common to the institutions of the European Communities and not to the national social security scheme, although in receipt of medical and hospital care given in Luxembourg, are nationals of other Member States. Second, the overwhelming majority of nationals residing in Luxembourg are covered by the national social security scheme.

Citations:

[2000] ECR II-3929, C-411/98, [2000] EUECJ C-411/98

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Adidas-Salomon Ag v Drape and others ChD 7-Jun-2006
The claimants had sponsored tennis players to wear their logo. The respondents organised tennis tournaments whose intended rules would prevent the display of the claimant’s logos. The claimants said that the restriction interfered with their rights . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Immigration

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231922

International Transport Workers’ Federation and Another v Viking Line Abp and Another: CA 3 Nov 2005

An order had been made restraining the defendant trades unions from taking industrial action. The unions said the UK court had no jurisdiction.
Held: ‘It is at first sight surprising that the English Commercial Court should be the forum in which a dispute between a Finnish company and a Finnish Trade Union and an international Trade Union concerned with a ferry running between Finland and Estonia should be litigated.’ The questions of European Law would require clarification by the European Court, and a referral was made. The claimant feared delay at the European and pressed for interim relief. The court said that where as here damages ‘are not likely to be an adequate remedy for either party, and where the nature of the case is as I have described, it seems to me that in assessing the balance of convenience and the holding of the ring the merits and strengths of Viking’s case has considerable relevance.’ To continue the injunction however would be to give the claimants the only remedy they needed, and to anticipate the finding of the European Court. The injunction was discharged.

Judges:

Waller, Mummery, Tuckey LJJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 1299

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Viking Line Abp v International Transport Workers’ Federation and Another ComC 16-Jun-2005
The claimant sought an injunction against the respondent international union of trades unions to restrain industrial action intended to prevent its transfer of registration of a ferry plying between Finland and Estonia to Estonia. It sought also a . .
Cited – American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd HL 5-Feb-1975
Interim Injunctions in Patents Cases
The plaintiffs brought proceedings for infringement of their patent. The proceedings were defended. The plaintiffs obtained an interim injunction to prevent the defendants infringing their patent, but they now appealed its discharge by the Court of . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame (No 2) HL 11-Oct-1990
The validity of certain United Kingdom legislation was challenged on the basis that it contravened provisions of the EEC Treaty by depriving the applicants of their Community rights to fish in European waters, and an interlocutory injunction was . .
Cited – Garden Cottage Foods Ltd v Milk Marketing Board HL 1984
In English law a breach of statutory duty, is actionable as such by a private individual to whom loss or damage is caused by a breach of that duty. Lord Diplock said that it was quite unarguable: ‘that if such a contravention of Article 86 gives . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Ex Parte Trades Union Congress CA 17-Oct-2000
Where a court referred an issue to the European Court, it was for that court in its discretion to decide whether interim relief might be granted, and an appellate court should not normally interfere in that exercise. The considerations for such a . .
Cited – Albany International BV v Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds Textielindustrie ECJ 21-Sep-1999
ECJ Compulsory affiliation to a sectoral pension scheme – Compatibility with competition rules – Classification of a sectoral pension fund as an undertaking. . .
Cited – Pavel Pavlov and Others v Stichting Pensioenfonds Medische Specialisten ECJ 12-Sep-2000
Europa Compulsory membership of an occupational pension scheme – Compatibility with competition rules – Classification of an occupational pension fund as an undertaking. . .
Cited – Commission v France (Judgment) ECJ 4-Apr-1974
Europa The commission, in the exercise of the powers which it has under articles 155 and 169 of the treaty, does not have to show the existence of a legal interest, since, in the general interest of the . .
Cited – Eugen Schmidberger, Internationale Transporte und Planzuge v Republic of Austria ECJ 12-Jun-2003
An environmental group organised a demonstration which blocked a motorway affecting the free movement of goods. The claimant haulage company complained that the respondent government had failed to prevent the blockage for many hours causing it . .
Cited – Hendrik van der Woude v Stichting Beatrixoord ECJ 21-Sep-2000
Competition – Community rules – Matters covered – Collective agreements in pursuit of social policy objectives – Collective agreement concerning sickness insurance and requiring an employer to pay employer contributions only to the insurers selected . .
Cited – B N O Walrave And L J N Koch v Association Union Cycliste Internationale, Koninklijke Nederlandsche Wielren Unie Et Federacion Espanola Ciclismo ECJ 12-Dec-1974
ECJ The practice of sport is subject to community law only in so far as it constitutes an economic activity within the meaning of article 2 of the Treaty. The prohibition of discrimination based on nationality in . .
Cited – J C J Wouters, J W Savelbergh and Price Waterhouse Belastingadviseurs BV v Algemene Raad van de Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten, intervener: Raad van de Balies van de Europese Gemeenschap ECJ 19-Feb-2002
ECJ Professional body – National Bar – Regulation by the Bar of the exercise of the profession – Prohibition of multi-disciplinary partnerships between members of the Bar and accountants – Article 85 of the EC . .
Cited – Union Royale Belge des societes de Football Association and others v Bosman and others ECJ 15-Dec-1995
bosmanECJ1995
A request for the Court to order a measure of inquiry under Article 60 of the Rules of Procedure, made by a party after the close of the oral procedure, can be admitted only if it relates to facts which may have a decisive influence and which the . .
Cited – Roman Angonese v Cassa di Risparmio di Bolzano SpA ECJ 6-Jun-2000
Europa Under the preliminary ruling procedure provided for by Article 177 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 234 EC), it is for the national courts alone, which are seised of a case and which must . .
Cited – Societe Anonyme De Droit Francais Seco Et Societe Anonyme De Droit Francais Desquenne and Giral v Etablissement D’Assurance Contre La Vieillesse Et L’Invalidite. ECJ 3-Feb-1982
Europa Article 59 and the third paragraph of article 60 of the eec treaty entail the abolition of all discrimination against a person providing a service on the grounds of his nationality or the fact that he is . .
Cited – Rush Portuguesa Ld v Office National d’immigration ECJ 27-Mar-1990
ECJ Articles 59 and 60 of the EEC Treaty and Articles 215 and 216 of the Act of Accession of Portugal must be interpreted as meaning that an undertaking established in Portugal providing services in the . .
Cited – Jean-Claude Arblade, Arblade and Fils SARL v Bernard Leloup, Serge Leloup, Sofrage SARL ECJ 23-Nov-1999
ECJ Freedom to provide services – Temporary deployment of workers for the purposes of performing a contract – Restrictions. . .
Cited – Unison v United Kingdom ECHR 2002
(Third Chamber) The freedom of association under Article 11 of the ECHR did not include a right for a union to require ‘that an employer enter into or remain in any collective bargaining arrangement’.
‘The Court recalls that, while Article 11 . .
Cited – Andre Mazzoleni v Inter Surveillance Assistance SARL, as the party civilly liable; third parties: Eric Guillaume and Others ECJ 15-Mar-2001
Europa Freedom to provide services – Temporary deployment of workers for performance of a contract – Directive 96/71/EC – Guaranteed minimum.
A French company, ISA provided security services in France and . .
Cited – Finalarte Sociedade de Construcao Civil Ld, Portugaia Construcoes and Engil Sociedade de Construcao Civil SA v Urlaubs-und Lohnausgleichskasse der Bauwirtschaft etc ECJ 25-Oct-2001
ECJ Article 59 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) and Article 60 of the Treaty (now Article 50 EC) do not preclude a Member State from imposing national rules guaranteeing entitlement to paid . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231672

Lehman Brothers Ltd v Smith: EAT 13 Oct 2005

EAT Practice and Procedure – Amendment – Permission to amend claim form to add new claim. Whether permission may be given notwithstanding that new claim is out of time when application is made, or whether the balance of hardship/prejudice test is to be applied.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Peter Clark

Citations:

UKEAT/0486/05, [2005] UKEAT 0486 – 05 – 1310

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Transport and General Workers Union v Safeway Stores Ltd EAT 23-Mar-2007
EAT Practice and Procedure – Amendment

Safeway closed a depot, leading to a large number of redundancies. The Union alleged that consultation was inadequate. Proceedings were initially commenced claiming only . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231528

Willow Oak Developments Ltd T/A Windsor Recruitment v Silverwood and others: EAT 5 Oct 2005

EAT Where employees are dismissed for refusal to sign a new contract containing proposed covenants in restraint of trade, the test is no different from that in respect of dismissal for refusing to sign a fresh contract in any other case, namely that, in respect of the proposed terms said to be unreasonable, it is not that the defence of some other substantial reason is not available, but that the reasonableness of the terms falls to be considered under s98(4), in accordance with the line of authorities recently summarised in Scott v Richardson EATS/0074/04: Forshaw v Archcraft Ltd [2005] IRLR 600 not followed. However, the Tribunal’s alternative decision that there was an unfair procedure and that Polkey did not apply meant that the finding of unfair dismissal stood and/or that there was no ground for remission.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Burton

Citations:

UKEAT/0339/05, [2005] UKEAT 0339 – 05 – 2010

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 89(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – St John of God (Care Services) Ltd v Brooks and others EAT 8-Apr-1992
The appellant had suffered a reduction in its income. It made an offer to staff, on the point of dismissing for refusal to sign, of less favourable terms, including reduced pay and holiday entitlement and the abolition of overtime rates for weekend . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Willow Oak Developments Ltd. (T/A Windsor Recruitment) v Silverwood and others CA 25-May-2006
The employer appealed a finding that he had been unreasonable in seeking to vary the employment contracts of his staff by adding post employment restrictive covenants, and that the consequent dismissals were unfair. Copies of the new contracts had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231529

Tamborrino v Kuypers: EAT 13 Oct 2005

EAT Practice and Procedure: Review -and- Withdrawal
Claim treated as withdrawn under Employment Tribunal Rules 25(3). Misapplication of law on facts. Review application similarly dismissed. Review judgment set aside; case allowed to proceed before Employment Tribunal.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Peter Clark

Citations:

UKEAT/0483/05, [2005] UKEAT 0483 – 05 – 1310

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Citing:

Cited – Williams v Ferrosan Ltd EAT 5-Mar-2004
Acting on guidance, the parties representatives and the tribunal had assumed that part of the award relating to loss of future earnings would not be taxable. The question now was whether the tribunal had power of its own motion to review its . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231527

Shah v Haden Building Management Ltd: EAT 28 Sep 2005

The tribunal had served a pre-hearing notice on employment dispute consultants who had acted for the claimant, but who had reserved their position in correspondence with the employers, and had asked that any documents be served on the claimant direct. The claimant did not attend, and her claim was struck out.
Held: The letter had been put before the tribunal, but the firm had in other respects held themselves out as acting for her, and the service was good.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Ansell

Citations:

[2005] UKEAT 0400 – 05 – 2809, UKEAT/0400/05, Times 02-Nov-2005

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Kyamanywa v London Borough of Hackney CA 5-Jun-2003
An issue was whether a notice had been sent to solicitors as the authorised representative of the Appellant. The Appellant had occasionally used one firm of solicitors but at other times she had acted in person at the hearing and also when . .
Cited – Weir Valves and Controls (UK) Ltd v Armitage EAT 15-Oct-2003
EAT Practice and Procedure – Case Management
In considering whether or not to strike out or impose some lesser remedy the guiding consideration was the overriding objective which required justice to be done . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231372

Deman v Association of University Teachers and others: EAT 29 Sep 2005

EAT Practice and Procedure – Appellate jurisdiction/Reasons/Burns-Barke. – It is not appropriate for a judge of the EAT, subject to an unresolved complaint to the Lord Chancellor by Mr Deman to handle that party’s case. Breeze Benson applied.

Judges:

His Honour Judge McMullen QC

Citations:

UKEATPA/0666/05, [2005] UKEAT 0666 – 05 – 2909

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231339

Empower Scotland Ltd v Khan: EAT 2 Sep 2005

EAT Race Discrimination – Direct – Victimisation – A remark of ‘you Pakistanis are all the same’ to a Pakistani in the context of ‘you Muslims are all troublemakers’ is capable of being race discrimination. The Employment Tribunal’s finding of victimisation for having complained of this remark was upheld.

Judges:

His Honour Judge McMullen QC

Citations:

EATS/0012/05, [2005] UKEAT 0012 – 05 – 0209

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231340

ECC Card Clothing Ltd v Knapton and Another: EAT 4 Oct 2005

EAT Unfair Dismissal
Unfair Dismissal – redundancy – unfair selection due to lack of adequate individual consultation – no error of law.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Peter Clark

Citations:

[2005] UKEAT 0361 – 05 – 0410, UKEAT/0361/05

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Cited by:

See Also – Knapton and others v ECC Card Clothing Ltd EAT 7-Mar-2006
EAT Unfair Dismissal: Compensation
Reversing the Employment Tribunal, in the assessment of compensation for unfair dismissal under Employment Rights Act 1996 section 123, an employee who took early receipt . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231352

J Browne v The Governing Body of Kingswood Primary School London Borough of Lambeth: EAT 27 Sep 2005

EAT Redundancy: Fairness
On the issue of a fair redundancy, the tribunal failed to consider statute and regulations and local authority advice in relation to redundancy procedure.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Ansell

Citations:

UKEAT/0601/04, [2005] UKEAT 0601 – 04 – 2709

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Dr Anya v University of Oxford and Another CA 22-Mar-2001
Discrimination – History of interactions relevant
When a tribunal considered whether the motive for an act was discriminatory, it should look not just at the act, but should make allowance for earlier acts which might throw more light on the act in question. The Tribunal should assess the totality . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231374

London Borough of Enfield v Sivanandan: EAT 12 Sep 2005

EAT Practice and Procedure – Striking-out/dismissal.
EAT Practice and Procedure – Striking-out/dismissal.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Peter Clark

Citations:

[2005] UKEAT 0348 – 05 – 1209, UKEAT/0348/05

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Sivanandan v London Borough of Enfield EAT 1-May-1998
. .
See Also – Sivanandan v London Borough of Enfield and others EAT 1-Oct-1998
. .
See Also – Sivanandan v London Borough of Enfield and others EAT 1-Feb-1999
. .
See Also – Sivanandan v Enfield and others EAT 25-Apr-2001
. .
See Also – Sivanandan v Enfield and Another EAT 11-Jul-2001
. .
See Also – Sivanandan v Enfield and others EAT 26-Jul-2001
. .
See Also – Sivanandan v London Borough of Enfield and Another EAT 26-Jul-2001
. .
See Also – Sivanandan v London Borough of Enfield and others EAT 23-Jul-2002
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal . .
See Also – Sivanandan v London Borough of Enfield and others CA 7-Oct-2002
. .
See Also – London Borough of Enfield v Sivanandan QBD 5-Apr-2004
. .
See Also – London Borough of Enfield v Sivanandan CA 20-Jan-2005
The employee first issued a claim in the employment tribunal, and then in the High Court. The defendant company argued that the tribunal proceedings were not concluded before the High Court proceedings were issued, but only later when they were . .

Cited by:

See Also – London Borough of Enfield v Sivanandan CA 29-Jun-2006
Application for civil restraint order. . .
See Also – Sivanandan v London Borough of Enfield EAT 19-Oct-2006
EAT Practice and Procedure – Estoppel or Abuse of Process. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231375

Amicus v Nissan Motor Manufacturing (UK) Ltd: EAT 26 Jul 2005

EAT Employers failed to consult with company council rather than union – did not consult with union until later stage 3 weeks before employees had to indicate willingness to be relocated but 4.5 months before possible dismissal. Tribunal held consultation, took place ‘in good time’. Appeal dismissed.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Ansell

Citations:

[2005] UKEAT 0184 – 05 – 2607, 0184/05

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Statutes:

Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 188

Citing:

Cited – Regina v British Coal Corporation, Ex Parte Price and Others QBD 28-May-1993
British Coal had the power to close coal mines once the unions had been consulted. The court gave guidance on the extent of consultation necessary.
Held: Fair consultation will involve consultation while consultations are at a formative stage; . .
Cited – Securicor Omega Express Ltd v GMB (A Trade Union) EAT 7-Apr-2003
EAT The company decided to close two branches and make redundancies. They presented the closure itself as a fait accompli to the union representatives. The Tribunal found that this involved a failure to consult . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231312

Korashi v Swansea NHS Trust: EAT 5 Jul 2005

EAT Practice and Procedure – Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity – Having conducted a hearing on live evidence pursuant to Facey v Midas, no bias or apparent bias by the Chairman was proved.

Judges:

His Honour Judge McMullen QC

Citations:

UKEAT/0847/04, [2005] UKEAT 0847 – 04 – 0507

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Cited by:

Appeal from – Korashi, Regina (on the Application of) v Swansea NHS Trust CA 27-Apr-2007
The claimant sought the names of people treated by a doctor with a view to advising them of the possibility of suing him for negligence, and now sought permission to appeal refusal of judicial review of the decision to refuse the names to him.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231317

Obasa v Islington: EAT 27 Jul 2005

EAT Contract of Employment and Disability Discrimination – Disability Discrimination – reasonable adjustments – whether a duty to carry out assessment before offering job on trial basis. Interpretation of ‘return to work’ policy.

Judges:

Bean J

Citations:

[2005] UKEAT 0228 – 05 – 2707

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231319

Harvey v Thames Valley Foods and Another: EAT 27 Jul 2005

EAT Public Interest Disclosure – did Tribunal come to wrong decision as to the employer’s knowledge as to the employee making a disclosure.
New evidence emerging in relation to employer’s failure to make reasonable adjustments and offer lighter work – effect on Tribunal’s decision.

Judges:

Ansell HHJ

Citations:

[2005] UKEAT 0670 – 04 – 2707, UKEAT/0670/04 and UKEAT/0279/05

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231316

Hammond v International Network Services (UK) Ltd and Another: CA 15 Sep 2005

Leave application

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 1186

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Protection from Harassment Act 1997 1 7

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See also – Hammond v International Network Services UK Ltd QBD 1-Nov-2007
Peter Coulson QC J said that in order to establish harassment under the 1997 Act, there must be conduct:
i) which occurs on at least two occasions;
ii) which is targeted at the claimant;
iii) which is calculated in an objective sense . .
Cited – Rayment v Ministry of Defence QBD 18-Feb-2010
The claimant sought damages alleging harassment by officers employed by the defendant. An internal investigation had revealed considerable poor behaviour by the senior officers, and that was followed by hostile behaviour. The defendant had put up . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231263

Cooke v Glenrose Fish Company: EAT 21 Apr 2004

EAT Practice and Procedure
On non-appearance by Applicant (as it turned out, due to negligence by his solicitor), the tribunal proceeded, and dismissed his claim: it then refused to hear a Review because of the wasted hearing and of the existence of a remedy against the solicitor. Bartholomew reconsidered (ET does not need to telephone a party on non-attendance but should certainly consider doing so (and should have done so in this case, where solicitors on the record)). Review should have been granted. Remedy against solicitors not material – and costs (upon undertaking by the solicitors to meet any order) sufficient to resolve prejudice.

Judges:

Burton J P

Citations:

UKEAT/0064/04, [2004] UKEAT 0064 – 04 – 2104, [2004] IRLR 86, [2004] ICR 1188

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, EATn, EATn

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Euro Hotels (Thornton Heath) Ltd v Alam EAT 20-Apr-2009
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Postponement or stay
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Review
Employment Tribunal gave Judgment at a hearing in the absence of the Respondent. It held a review and refused to vary the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231309

Smiths Detection – Watford Ltd v Berriman: EAT 9 Aug 2005

EAT The Employment Tribunal was wrong to find that the Respondent had discriminated against the Claimant under Section 6(1) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 because it omitted to find what arrangements made by or on behalf of the Respondent, or which physical feature of the Respondent’s premises, placed the Claimant at a substantial disadvantage.
The Employment Tribunal found that reasonable adjustments could have been made although there was no evidence to support the finding and the finding was contrary to the medical evidence.

Judges:

His Honour Judge D Serota QC

Citations:

UKEAT/0712/04, [2005] UKEAT 0712 – 04 – 0908, UKEAT/0144/05

Links:

Bailii, EATn, EATn

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995 6(1)

Cited by:

Cited – London Borough of Camden v Price-Job EAT 18-Dec-2007
EAT Disability discrimination – Reasonable adjustments/Justification
1. The employers appealed against two findings by the Tribunal that they had failed to make reasonable adjustments for her disability and . .
Cited – Dundee City Council v Malcolm EAT 25-Jul-2008
EAT SEX DISCRIMINATION: Vicarious liability
Sexual harassment claim by an employee of an education authority. Circumstances in which tribunal had misdirected itself as to its own prior judgment and erred in . .
Cited – Stafford and Rural Homes Ltd and Another v Hughes EAT 9-Mar-2009
EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION: Reasonable adjustments
Effect of Malcolm: on the facts of the case the decision in Malcolm did not make any difference to the conclusion. There is no requirement in law to set . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231131

Perkin v St Georges Healthcare NHS Trust: CA 12 Oct 2005

A senior employee had been dismissed because his manner and management style had led to a breakdown in his relationships with other members of the senior executive team. The employment tribunal had considered whether his dismissal for that reason had been unfair but had not decided whether the reason for his dismissal could be characterised as relating to his conduct or as amounting to some other substantial reason for his dismissal.
Held: It would have been better for the ET to have found into which category the reason for the employee’s dismissal had come. Wall LJ (with whose judgment the other members of the Court agreed) said that like Sedley LJ (who had considered whether permission to appeal should be given) he saw it as a case falling within ‘some other substantial reason’ rather than conduct.

Judges:

Tuckey. Mance, Wall LJJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 1174, [2005] IRLR 934, [2006] ICR 617

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust EAT 18-Mar-2011
EAT CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Disciplinary and grievance procedure
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason
(1) An employee who has been dismissed because of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231062

Bradley v The Jockey Club: CA 12 Jul 2005

The Jockey had been disqualified from riding for five years for breaches of the club’s rules. He said the punishment was disproportionate in effectively preventing him working for a living.
Held: The appeal failed, and the judge’s analysis was approved. Having entered the profession, the claimant must accept its rules. He had broken them. The committee had had sufficient basis for the conclusion they had reached, and the penalty was proportionate. ‘Professional and trade regulatory bodies were usually far better placed than the court to evaluate the significance of breaches of the rules and standards of behaviour governing the professions or trades to which they related.’ Having acquired a means of making a living under those rules could not be heard to say he had a vested right to continue to earn his living in that way. The judge had concluded that the Board had properly carried out a balancing exercise between maintaining the integrity of racing, and the impact of the disqualification on the applicant and his family.

Judges:

Lord Phillips MR, Buxton LJ, Scott Baker LJ

Citations:

Times 14-Jul-2005, [2005] EWCA Civ 1056, [2006] ISLR, SLR-1

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Nagle v Fielden CA 1966
The applicant, a lady jockey appealed refusal by the Jockey Club to issue to her a jockey’s license based simply on the fact of her sex.
Held: Her appeal succeeded. The refusal was against public policy. Where a man’s right to work was in . .
Cited – Regina (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 23-May-2001
A prison policy requiring prisoners not to be present when their property was searched and their mail was examined was unlawful. The policy had been introduced after failures in search procedures where officers had been intimidated by the presence . .
Cited – De Freitas v The Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Lands and Housing and others PC 30-Jun-1998
(Antigua and Barbuda) The applicant was employed as a civil servant. He joined a demonstration alleging corruption in a minister. It was alleged he had infringed his duties as a civil servant, and he replied that the constitution allowed him to . .
Appeal from – Bradley v Jockey Club QBD 2004
The former jockey sought an injunction to restrain the respondent enforcing a ban it had imposed on him from working as a jockey for five years. The defendant had previously been ruled authoritatively not to be amenable to judicial review in public . .

Cited by:

Cited – Mullins, Regina (on the Application of) v The Jockey Club Admn 17-Oct-2005
The claimant’s horse had been found after a race to have morphine in his system. It was not thought that the claimant was at fault, but the horse was disqualifed. He sought judicial review of the decision.
Held: The decision was a disciplinary . .
Cited – Adidas-Salomon Ag v Drape and others ChD 7-Jun-2006
The claimants had sponsored tennis players to wear their logo. The respondents organised tennis tournaments whose intended rules would prevent the display of the claimant’s logos. The claimants said that the restriction interfered with their rights . .
Cited – X, Regina (on the Application of) v Y School Admn 21-Feb-2007
The court was asked whether a school was entitled to refuse to allow a Muslim girl to wear the niqab full face veil at school. The reasons were ‘first educational factors resulting from a teacher being unable to see the face of the girl with a . .
Cited – McKeown v British Horseracing Authority QBD 12-Mar-2010
The jockey claimant challenged disciplinary proceedings brought against him by the defendant authority.
Held: The findings were upheld in part but remitted for consideration of giving the claimant opportunity to challenge certain evidence. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Administrative, Contract, Natural Justice

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.230941

Neary v Egerton-Rothesay Ltd: EAT 18 Jul 2005

EAT Practice and Procedure -and- Unfair Dismissal
No error of law in Employment Tribunal (1) finding that Appellant had been fairly dismissed for some other substantial reason and not because of disability and (2) the dismissal procedure had been fair.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Birtles

Citations:

[2005] UKEAT 0061 – 05 – 1807, 0061/05

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.230896

Tunnicliffe v The Governing Body of Wellington School: EAT 11 May 2005

EAT Unlawful Deduction from Wages – Exclusions. The ET misconstrued an agreement between the parties as to the circumstances in which the Claimant might reasonably refuse to accept an alternative post.

Judges:

His Honour Judge D Serota QC

Citations:

[2005] UKEAT 0125 – 05 – 1208, UKEAT/0125/05

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.230089

Ursell v Manor Bakeries Ltd: EAT 21 Feb 2005

EAT Maternity Rights and Parental Leave – Unfair dismissal.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Burton

Citations:

[2005] UKEAT 0759 – 04 – 2102, UKEAT/0759/04

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Dr Anya v University of Oxford and Another CA 22-Mar-2001
Discrimination – History of interactions relevant
When a tribunal considered whether the motive for an act was discriminatory, it should look not just at the act, but should make allowance for earlier acts which might throw more light on the act in question. The Tribunal should assess the totality . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.229902

Royal Veterinary College v Yerbury: EAT 29 Jun 2005

EAT Unfair Dismissal; Reason for Dismissal; Reasonableness of Dismissal
Dismissal for performance which was a combination of unsatisfactory conduct and capability. The Employment Tribunal was in error in having regard only to the capability aspect of the employee’s performance and disregarding the conduct element altogether.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Reid QC

Citations:

[2005] UKEAT 0202 – 05 – 2906, UKEAT/0202/05

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Employment

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.229908

A C Redfearn v Serco Ltd T/A West Yorkshire Transport Service: EAT 27 Jul 2005

The claimant said that he had been indirectly discriminated against on racial grounds. He was dismissed after being elected as a local councillor for the BNP. The employer considered that for Health and Safety reasons, his dismissal was necessary because of the upset and disturbance his continued employment would create with Asian co-workers and passengers.
Held: The claimant’s appeal succeeded. ‘the health and safety issues . . are issues which arise directly out of the membership by the Claimant of the BNP, which the Tribunal has already found was a party which was open to whites only; and that the direct consequence, as the Tribunal found, of the membership, of that party was the health and safety problem ‘having regard to the high preponderance of passengers and significant number of employees who are of Asian origin’, and this must be a reference to the possible anxiety suffered by these Asian passengers and employees – the latter being a reference to the 35% of employees who presumably might, like the passenger, be upset or anxious. There is no express reference to the employees who are not of Asian origin who might be roused to anger, as mentioned earlier in the Judgment. And then . . the Tribunal again makes entirely clear its conclusion that the action was taken ‘because of the Respondent’s concern in relation to its passengers and employees of Asian origin.” The employer might arguably be accused of deciding that no member of the BNP could be employed by it. A dismissal on health and safety grounds might be based on racial considerations (given the emphasis on Asian colleagues and passengers) and therefore be unlawful. The tribunal had asked itself the wrong question and had erred in law. ‘The Appeal Tribunal must be in a position to be satisfied that the employment tribunal has carried out its job. Absence of reasons is one of the indications that the employment tribunal has not carried out its job.’ The case was remitted to a different tribunal.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Burton

Citations:

[2005] UKEAT 0153 – 05 – 2707, UKEAT/0153/05, [2005] IRLR 744

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Statutes:

Race Relations Act 1976 Amendment Regulations 2003, Race Relations Act 1976, Council Directive of 29 June 2000/43/EC

Citing:

Cited – Weathersfield Ltd (T/a Van and Truck Rentals) v Sargent CA 10-Dec-1998
The employer, a vehicle hire operator, explained to the Claimant employee following her appointment as a receptionist their policy that if she received an enquiry from any coloured or Asians, judging by their voices, she was to tell them that there . .
Cited – Showboat Entertainment Centre v Owens EAT 28-Oct-1983
The employer had dismissed an employee who had refused to comply with a discriminatory instruction by the employer to exclude blacks from the employer’s amusement centre. The tribunal at first instance had found that that was a dismissal ‘on racial . .
Cited – Din v Carrington Viyella Ltd EAT 1982
The court considered what actions could found a claim for racial discrimination: ‘What has to be enquired into is the reason why a particular course was adopted: the question is was it on racial grounds?’ The court deprecated any consideration of . .
Cited – Regina v Commission for Racial Equality (ex parte Westminster City Council) QBD 1984
The council had dismissed a black road sweeper to whose appointment the trade union objected on racial grounds.
Held: The council’s motive for doing so, to avert industrial action, could not avail them. Woolf J said: ‘In this case although the . .
Cited – O’Neill v Governors of St Thomas More Roman Catholic Voluntary Aided Upper School EAT 7-Jun-1996
The dismissal by a Roman Catholic school of a teacher who was pregnant by a priest, was on the grounds of pregnancy, and for an inadmissible reason. The pregnancy was an effective cause of the adverse treatment of the Appellant by her employer. . .
Cited – Carter v Ahsan EAT 21-Jun-2004
The claimant alleged discrimination in the failure to select him as a candidate. As a Pakistani, he was excluded by a decision not to select such a candidate for this constituency after allegations (later shown false) had been made against that . .
Cited – Abernethy v Mott Hay and Anderson CA 1974
Lord Cairns said: ‘A reason for the dismissal of an employee is a set of facts known to the employer, or it may be of beliefs held by him, which cause him to dismiss the employee. If at the time of his dismissal the employer gives a reason for it, . .
Cited – Swiggs and others v Nagarajan HL 15-Jul-1999
Bias may not be intentional
The applicant claimed that he had been denied appointment to a job with London Regional Transport because he had brought a number of previous race discrimination claims against it or associated companies. An industrial tribunal had upheld his claim . .
Cited – James v Eastleigh Borough Council HL 14-Jun-1990
Result Decides Dscrimination not Motive
The Council had allowed free entry to its swimming pools to those of pensionable age (ie women of 60 and men of 65). A 61 year old man successfully complained of sexual discrimination.
Held: The 1975 Act directly discriminated between men and . .
Cited – Hardys and Hansons Plc v Lax CA 7-Jul-2005
The issue of justification of discrimination is rarely a simple matter. No margin of appreciation was to be allowed to an employer. It is for the tribunal to make its own judgment as to whether the practice complained of by the employee was . .
Cited – Igen Ltd v Wong CA 18-Feb-2005
Proving Discrimination – Two Stage Process
Each appeal raised procedural issues in discrimination cases, asking where, under the new regulations, the burden of proof had shifted.
Held: The new situation required a two stage process before a complaint could be upheld. First the claimant . .
Cited – Allonby v Accrington and Rossendale College and others CA 23-Mar-2001
The college failed to renew contracts for lecturers on one year fixed term contracts. A greater proportion of women were subject to such contracts, and the dismissal fell entirely on part time and hourly paid workforce. The condition which the . .
Cited – Sinclair Roche and Temperley (A Firm) v Heard, Fellows EAT 12-Apr-2005
EAT Practice and Procedure
Employment Tribunal Chairman, after a Case Management and Directions Hearing to delineate issues and set timetable for May hearing, delayed for three months before delivering . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Serco Ltd v Redfearn CA 25-May-2006
The employee claimed that he had been discriminated against. He had stood as a candidate in local elections for the British National Party (BNP) party. His employers had dismissed him saying that his propagation of racially discriminatory polices . .
At EAT – Redfearn v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Jan-2009
Statement of facts . .
At EAT – Redfearn v The United Kingdom ECHR 6-Nov-2012
The applicant alleged that his rights had been infringed by his dismissal from his post as driver transporting children and adults with physical and/or mental disabilities. He had stood for election as a candidate for the British National Party, a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.229784

Adese v Coral Racing Ltd: EAT 5 Aug 2005

EAT The claimant appealed on the basis that he had been treated unfairly by an employment tribunal by reason of an unjust costs warning; this placed such pressure upon him that he felt obliged to abandon his claim for unfair dismissal. He argume that his legal representative was so obviously incompetent that the employment tribunal should have treated the claimant as effectively a litigant in person. It was submitted that in those circumstances the costs warning rendered the whole decision of the tribunal defective, requiring a rehearing.

Judges:

His Honour Judge D Serota QC

Citations:

[2005] UKEAT 0760 – 04 – 0508, UKEAT/0760/04

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Cited by:

Cited – Drysdale v The Department of Transport (The Maritime and Coastguard Agency) CA 31-Jul-2014
The claimant had been represented at his claim before the employment tribunal by his wife, acting as a lay representative. She asked to be allowed to withdraw the complaint. Without asking her, the complaint was dismissed, and costs awarded against . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.229800

Maxview Ltd v Galbraith: EAT 10 Jun 2005

EAT Time Limits – ERA and DDA claims. Limitation. J and E extension test applied to both. Case remitted on question of reasonable practicability in ERA claims.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Peter Clark

Citations:

UKEAT/0211/05, [2005] UKEAT 0211 – 05 – 1006

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.229791

King v University Court of the University of St Andrews: OHCS 3 Jun 2005

Judges:

Lady Paton And Lord Hamilton And Sir David Edward

Citations:

[2005] ScotCS CSIH – 43

Links:

Bailii, ScotC

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

See also – King v University Court of the University of St Andrews SCS 30-Jan-2002
The University had employed the pursuer on terms that it was entitled ‘for good cause shown to terminate the appointment of the employee by giving three months’ notice in writing’. He claimed on two bases, first, a breach of the alleged express term . .
See also – King v The University Court of the University of St Andrews OHCS 3-Jul-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.229442

Krasner v McMath; in Re Huddersfield Fine Worsteds Limited: CA 12 Aug 2005

The administrators had adopted the contracts of certain employees, who now claimed that the protective awards should have priority to the expenses of the administration.
Held: The payments did fall within paragraph 99(5) and do not have super-priority.
Responsibility for protective awards on insolvency.

Judges:

Lord Justice Clarke Lord Justice Jacob Lord Justice Neuberger

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 1072, Times 26-Sep-2005, [2006] 2 BCLC 160

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Insolvency Act 1986 Sch B1, Trade Union Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 189

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In Re Hartlebury Printers Ltd 1992
Insolvency, at least per se, does not amount to a special circumstance exempting an employer from consulting employees on redundancy. Morritt J noted the distinction in the Directive between contemplated and projected redundancies and section 99 to . .
Appeal from – Krasner (Administrator of Globe Worsted Company Ltd and Huddersfield Fine Worsteds Ltd.) v Mcmath (Representing All Employees of the Companies) ChD 27-Jul-2005
. .
Cited – Powdrill and Another v Watson and Another HL 23-Mar-1995
A receiver of a companies assets, who employed former staff of the company, beyond an initial period of 14 days, becomes personally responsible for their employment contracts, and consequently becomes liable for making redundancy payments. The 1870 . .
Cited – Delaney v Staples HL 15-Apr-1992
The claimant had been dismissed but had been given no payment in lieu of notice. She claimed to the Industrial Tribunal that this was an unlawful deduction from her wages and that therefore the Industrial Tribunal had jurisdiction.
Held: The . .

Cited by:

Cited – McCartney and Unite The Union and Another v Nortel Networks UK Ltd (In Administration) ChD 22-Apr-2010
The administrators gave employees of the company notice of termination of their employment. Then administrators refused consent under para 43(6) to actions against the company in the Northern Ireland Industrial Tribunal for protective awards, unfair . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Employment

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.229333

Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen v Lee: EAT 23 Feb 2004

EAT Contract within s174(4)(a)(iii) of TULRA 1992 for which a Trade Union cannot expel a member is limited to being or ceasing to be a member of a political party (in this case BNP). A union can expel a member if its reason is exclusively his or her activities as a party member and not his or her party membership per se: and such conduct does not need to be linked to his or her membership of the Union. Remitted to ET.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (P)

Citations:

UKEAT/625/03, [2004] UKEAT 0625 – 03 – 2402

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

see Also – Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen (Aslef) v The United Kingdom ECHR 27-Feb-2007
The Union complained that it had not been allowed to expel from its membership a member of the far right BNP party. They said that his views were incompatible with the union’s stated objectives. There was no related closed shop.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.194440

Foster v Somerset County Council: CA 13 Feb 2004

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 222

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – C Foster v Somerset County Council EAT 28-Jul-2003
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for dismissal . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – C Foster v Somerset County Council EAT 28-Jul-2003
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for dismissal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.194419

Hardy v Polk (Leeds) Ltd: EAT 2 Feb 2004

EAT Practice and Procedure – Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity
The amount of the respondent’s entitlement to pay in lieu will be relevant to the question of any compensatory award.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (P)

Citations:

UKEAT/301/03, [2004] UKEAT 0301 – 03 – 0202, [2004] IRLR 420, [2005] ICR 557

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Langley and Another v Burso EAT 3-Mar-2006
The claimant had been dismissed shortly after becoming unable to work. She sought payment of her normal salary during the period of notice saying this was established good practice.
Held: ‘We are put in the invidious position of being bound by . .
Cited – Dignity Funerals Limited v Bruce OHCS 14-Oct-2004
The employee was found to have been unfairly dismissed. The employer appealed the compensatory award which was based on his depressive illness. They said that the illness predated the dismissal.
Held: The EAT’s decision was set aside. In . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.194443

Burns v Royal Mail Group Plc (No 2) (Formerly Consignia Plc), Humphrey: EAT 14 Jan 2004

The hearing was an adjourned second hearing. The appeal on sex discrimination had been dismissed, and the balance of the claim for constructive unfair dismissal was adjourned. At that adjourned hearing the claimant now sought to re-open the claims already remitted.
Held: The EAT adopted the practice in Emery Reimbold. The earlier remission of the case had not disposed of the appeal, but was for the purpose of doing so. Could it now therefore be appealed? The employment appeal tribunal, in a case where an employment tribunal is alleged to have failed in its judgment to deal with an issue at all, or to have given no reasons or no adequate reasons for a decision, may invite the employment tribunal to clarify, supplement or give its written reasons before proceeding to a final determination of the appeal.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (P)

Citations:

UKEAT/873/02/(2), [2004] UKEAT 0873 – 02 – 1401, [2004] ICR 1103, [2004] IRLR 425

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Burns v Consignia Plc, Humphrey EAT 2-Apr-2003
EAT Practice and Procedure – Amendment . .
Cited – De Keyser Limited v Wilson EAT 20-Mar-2001
The claimant appealed against an order striking out her claim.
Held: The right to respect for private life is qualified by the right for both parties to have a just trial of the issues between them; and it has to be borne in mind that it was . .
Cited – Tran v Greenwich Vietnam Community Project EAT 5-Apr-2001
The applicant appealed a rejection of his claim for unfair dismissal. He claimed that the management committee of the organisation had both investigated the complaint and adjudicated upon it, and that the organization’s procedures did not allow for . .
Cited – Meek v City of Birmingham District Council CA 18-Feb-1987
Employment Tribunals to Provide Sufficient Reasons
Tribunals, when giving their decisions, are required to do no more than to make clear their findings of fact and to answer any question of law raised.
Bingham LJ said: ‘It has on a number of occasions been made plain that the decision of an . .
Cited – Flannery and Another v Halifax Estate Agencies Ltd, Trading As Colleys Professional Services CA 18-Feb-1999
A judge at first instance taking a view on an expert’s report should give reasons in his judgment for that view. On appeal, where no reasons had been given, he should be asked to provide reasons by affidavit for the appeal. An inadequately reasoned . .
Cited – English v Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd; etc, (Practice Note) CA 30-Apr-2002
Judge’s Reasons Must Show How Reached
In each case appeals were made, following Flannery, complaining of a lack of reasons given by the judge for his decision.
Held: Human Rights jurisprudence required judges to put parties into a position where they could understand how the . .
Cited – Adebowale v Peninsula Business Services Ltd EAT 20-Jan-2003
Burton J P said that the CA had ‘expressly encouraged Courts considering whether an appeal should proceed on grounds of alleged failure to make findings, or alleged absence of reasons, to consider referring the case back to the lower Court for . .
Cited – Prebon Marshall Yamane (UK) Ltd v Rose EAT 3-Dec-2002
. .
Cited – Arrow Nominees Inc and Another v Blackledge and Others CA 22-Jun-2000
A petition had been lodged alleging unfair prejudice in the conduct of the company’s affairs. The defendants alleged that when applying for relief under section 459, the claimants had attempted to pervert the course of justice by producing forged or . .

Cited by:

Cited – Barke v Seetec Business Technology Centre Ltd CA 16-May-2005
Challenge to the lawfulness of the practice of the EAT in referring back to the IT deficient reasons with an invitation to expand upon them.
Held: The words ‘disposing of’ in the section meant ‘dealing with conclusively’ rather than . .
Cited – Woodhouse School v Webster CA 18-Feb-2009
The school appealed against a finding that it had constructively dismissed the claimant. The claimant had refused an order to dismiss a staff member for profound bilateral deafness, saying that that would be unlawful. He had left rather than obey an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.194664

D’Souza v Ousley and Another (2205): EAT 22 May 2001

The claimant’s appeal had been struck out after the Tribunal, having demanded a sworn statement of truth to support the allegation of misbehaviour in the court, and the claimant had repeatedly failed to provide one.
Held: The rules only required that a sworn affidavit would ‘normally’ be required. It was not absolute. The strike out for this reason would be set aside. An order was made requiring the claimant to file particularised allegations for the cases to proceed.

Citations:

[2001] UKEAT 23 – 00 – 2205, [2001] UKEAT 0395 – 99 – 2205

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.203850

Lambert v Croydon College: EAT 19 Nov 1998

Crank was rightly decided, notwithstanding a fresh argument that it offended against section 203 by in effect sanctioning contracting out of the Act.

Judges:

Judge Peter Clark

Citations:

[1999] ICR 409, [1998] UKEAT 1247 – 96 – 1911, [1999] IRLR 246

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Affirmed – Crank v HMSO EAT 1985
The tribunal considered whether the parties had initially agreed a date for the termination of the employment: ‘In the present case it is a striking feature that it was the employee who himself suggested and asked agreement for 2 September 1983 as . .
See Also – Lambert v Croydon College EAT 13-May-1998
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Fitzgerald v University of Kent at Canterbury CA 17-Feb-2004
The parties had been in negotiations, attempting to settle a proposed action for unfair dismissal. They agreed to fix the effective date of determination at a certain date, but this was after the date fixed by the statute. The action was begun . .
See Also – Lambert v Croydon College EAT 13-May-1998
. .
Cited – Kirklees Metropolitan Council v Radecki CA 8-Apr-2009
The council appealed against a finding that the claimant’s case had been brought in time. There had been negotiations for a compromise agreement which had failed. The EAT had found it unclear that the employment had ended at the point asserted by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.194276

Barsotti and others C-19/01: ECJ 4 Mar 2004

(Judgment) Social policy – Protection of employees in the event of their employer’s insolvency – Directive 80/987/EEC – Limitation of liability of the guarantee institutions – Ceiling to the liability – Part payments by the employer – Social objective of the directive

Citations:

C-19/01, [2004] EUECJ C-19/01

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Employment, Insolvency

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.194388

Crank v HMSO: EAT 1985

The tribunal considered whether the parties had initially agreed a date for the termination of the employment: ‘In the present case it is a striking feature that it was the employee who himself suggested and asked agreement for 2 September 1983 as being the date from which his resignation was to take effect, and the employer’s agreed to that. We think it is clear therefore that both sides intended that the contract should be terminated as of 2 September. Why, in those circumstances, should one not treat the effective date of termination, for the purposes of the statute, as being 2 September? Of course it is right that on the 13 September (to select one date by way of example) the contract of employment was still subsisting, but the position that we have to consider is that which has arisen in the light of the agreement between the parties. We think that the common sense answer to the question ‘When was the effective date of termination?’ is that which the industrial tribunal reached. Both parties were therefore bound and we can see no sufficient justification to give the wording of the statute a special meaning so as to treat the termination as not having taken effect until a date later than that which the employee and the employers had agreed was the date of termination.’

Judges:

Peter Gibson J

Citations:

[1985] ICR 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Fitzgerald v University of Kent at Canterbury CA 17-Feb-2004
The parties had been in negotiations, attempting to settle a proposed action for unfair dismissal. They agreed to fix the effective date of determination at a certain date, but this was after the date fixed by the statute. The action was begun . .
Affirmed – Lambert v Croydon College EAT 19-Nov-1998
Crank was rightly decided, notwithstanding a fresh argument that it offended against section 203 by in effect sanctioning contracting out of the Act. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.194275

D’Souza v Lambeth Borough Council: EAT 18 Oct 1995

The employment tribunal held that it had not been practicable for the council to reinstate Mr D’Souza. He had succeeded in a claim for unfair dismissal and sought reinstatement, but this had been refused.
Held: An award of damages was made for the failure to re-instate.

Citations:

Unreported, 18/10/1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 6-Dec-1994
. .
See Also – D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 1-May-1995
. .

Cited by:

Appeal from – D’Souza v Lambeth Borough Council CA 3-Mar-1996
The claimant challenged a decision that the council could properly refuse to re-instate him after a wrongful dismissal. . .
See Also – D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 2-Jul-1997
. .
See Also – D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 9-Oct-1997
. .
See Also – D’Souza v Lambeth Borough Council CA 10-Dec-1997
. .
See Also – D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 14-Jan-1998
A re-instatement award after a finding of racial discrimination is in two stage process. The first part consisting of the order for re-instatement stays the balance of the award provisionally until the order for re-instatement has been complied with . .
See Also – D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 1-Jul-1998
. .
See Also – D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth and Another EAT 22-Jul-1998
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.183744

Abegaze v South East Essex College and Another: EAT 1 May 2003

Citations:

[2003] EAT 0862 – 02 – 0105, [2003] UKEAT 0862 – 02 – 0105

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – South East Essex College and others v Dr A Abegaze EAT 21-Sep-2005
EAT Race Discrimination – Out of Time.
EAT Race Discrimination – Out of Time. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.189400

Fitzgerald v University of Kent at Canterbury: CA 17 Feb 2004

The parties had been in negotiations, attempting to settle a proposed action for unfair dismissal. They agreed to fix the effective date of determination at a certain date, but this was after the date fixed by the statute. The action was begun within three months of the agreed date, but not the statutory date.
Held: The jurisdiction of the tribunal was statutory, and it was not open to the parties to make an agreement to give a non-statutory jurisdiction.

Judges:

Mr Justice Brooke Lord Justice Sedley Lord Justice Jacob

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 143, Times 04-Mar-2004, Gazette 18-Mar-2004

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 97

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Crank v HMSO EAT 1985
The tribunal considered whether the parties had initially agreed a date for the termination of the employment: ‘In the present case it is a striking feature that it was the employee who himself suggested and asked agreement for 2 September 1983 as . .
Cited – Lambert v Croydon College EAT 19-Nov-1998
Crank was rightly decided, notwithstanding a fresh argument that it offended against section 203 by in effect sanctioning contracting out of the Act. . .
Cited – Caines v Hamon-Lummus Ltd EAT 11-Jan-1996
The effective date of termination is a statutory construct which depends on what has happened between the parties over time and not on what they may agree to treat as having happened. The EAT upheld the industrial tribunal’s view that, in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.193585

Burns v Consignia Plc, Humphrey: EAT 2 Apr 2003

EAT Practice and Procedure – Amendment

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Burton

Citations:

EAT/873/02, [2003] EAT 0873 – 02 – 0204, [2003] UKEAT 0873 – 02 – 0204

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Burns v Royal Mail Group Plc (No 2) (Formerly Consignia Plc), Humphrey EAT 14-Jan-2004
The hearing was an adjourned second hearing. The appeal on sex discrimination had been dismissed, and the balance of the claim for constructive unfair dismissal was adjourned. At that adjourned hearing the claimant now sought to re-open the claims . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.184359

Bezant and Another v Tertiary Enterprises Ltd: EAT 10 Apr 2003

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Other

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (P)

Citations:

[2003] UKEAT 1308 – 01 – 1004, EAT/1308/01 and EAT/106/02

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Bezant and Another v Tertiary Enterprises Ltd EAT 8-Jul-2002
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Bezant v Tertiary Enterprises Ltd EAT 19-Jul-2004
EAT Practice and Procedure – Estoppel or Abuse of Process. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.191484

Air Canada Alpha Catering Services v Basra: EAT 21 Feb 2000

EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal

Judges:

His Honour Judge Peter Clark

Citations:

EAT/367/99, [2000] EAT 367 – 99 – 2102

Links:

EATn, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Divine-Bortey v London Borough of Brent CA 14-May-1998
The claimant had brought and lost an action relating to his dismissal by the defendant, who now appealed against an order that he was not estopped from bring a second claim on a different basis namely race discrimination, disapplying the rule in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.171785

Baldeh v Churches Housing Association of Dudley and District Ltd: EAT 11 Mar 2019

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Disability related discrimination
The Claimant was dismissed by the Respondent at the end of a six-month probationary period. It was accepted that she was disabled by depression. She claimed that her dismissal was an act of disability related discrimination under section 15 EqA 2010.
The ET rejected the claim because:
(a) They found that the Respondent did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that she was disabled at the time of the dismissal;
(b) They said there was no evidence that her behaviour towards her colleagues (which was part of the reason for her dismissal) ‘arose in consequence of’ her disability;
(c) There were other reasons for her dismissal in addition which were sufficient;
(d) The dismissal was justified under section 15(1)(b) EqA 2010.
The EAT allowed the appeal because of errors in relation to each stage of the reasoning:
(a) Although the Respondent did not know about the Claimant’s disability at the time of the dismissal, they may have acquired actual or constructive knowledge of it before the rejection of her appeal and the rejection of the appeal formed part of the unfavourable treatment of which she was complaining;
(b) There was in fact some evidence that her depression caused the relevant behaviour which the ET ought to have considered;
(c) It was sufficient for the ‘something arising in consequence’ of the disability to have a ‘material influence’ on the unfavourable treatment: the fact that there may have been other causes as well was not an answer to the claim;
(d) The ET failed to consider the section 15(1)(b) defence properly; in particular, they failed to address the question whether dismissal was a proportionate response.
The EAT therefore remitted to a fresh ET the issue whether the rejection of the Claimant’s appeal was an act of discrimination under section 15 EqA 2010.

Citations:

[2019] UKEAT 0290 – 18 – 1103

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.637645

Kynixa Ltd v Hynes and others: QBD 30 Jun 2008

Complaint of breaches of employment contracts and shareholders’ agreements.

Judges:

Wyn Williams J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1495 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Supplemental Judgment – Kynixa Ltd v Hynes and others QBD 15-Jul-2008
. .
Cited – Office Angels Ltd v Rainer-Thomas CA 1991
Reasonability Test of Post Employment Restriction
The court re-stated the principles applicable in testing whether an employee’s restrictive covenant was reasonable: ‘The court cannot say that a covenant in one form affords no more than adequate protection to a covenantee’s relevant legitimate . .
Cited – Brake Brothers Limited v Ungless QBD 2004
The court considered the law relating to post employment restrictive covenants. Gloster J said: ‘(1) Covenants in Restraint of Trade are prima-facie unlawful and accordingly are ‘to be treated with suspicion’ see per Laddie J in Countrywide Assured . .

Cited by:

Main Judgment – Kynixa Ltd v Hynes and others QBD 15-Jul-2008
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Company

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.270818

Basic Solutions Ltd v Sands: QBD 23 Jun 2008

The claimant sought injunctions to prevent misuse by former employees of confidential information in their possession and breach of a post employment restrictive covenant.
Held: Eady J said that he could not see, as a matter of general principle, how the fact that there might sometimes be long lead times in tendering for and obtaining contracts should, in itself, have a bearing upon the period for which restrictive covenants should be effective. The claimant had not managed to demonstrate that a 12-month period was reasonably necessary. The covenant in question applied to potential customers as well as to existing ones.

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1388 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Associated Foreign Exchange Ltd v International Foreign Exchange (UK) Ltd and Another ChD 26-May-2010
The claimant sought interim injunctions to enforce a restrictive covenant against solicitation of customers in a former employee’s contract. The employee, a FOREX dealer, had been placed on garden leave for three months and then his contract . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.270299

Norbrook Laboratories (GB) Ltd v Adair and Another: QBD 6 May 2008

The claimants sought a post employment injunction to prevent the defendant revealing confidential materials relating to inventions created during his employment.

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 978 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Office Angels Ltd v Rainer-Thomas CA 1991
Reasonability Test of Post Employment Restriction
The court re-stated the principles applicable in testing whether an employee’s restrictive covenant was reasonable: ‘The court cannot say that a covenant in one form affords no more than adequate protection to a covenantee’s relevant legitimate . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Intellectual Property

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.268691