[2005] UKEAT 0246 – 04 – 1603
England and Wales
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.224713
EAT Time Limits
The Appellant applied out of time alleging unfair dismissal and sex discrimination. At the Employment Tribunal the Appellant’s Solicitor withdrew the unfair dismissal claim accepting he could not show it was not reasonably practicable to issue in time. The Employment Tribunal held not just and equitable to extend time where both lay client and Solicitor were well aware of issue date. Employment Tribunal suggested possible claim against Solicitor. Held (1) no appeal against unfair dismissal claim, dismissed and withdrawn and in any event would have been fruitless (2) Employment Tribunal made no error of law, did not omit factors or take into account extraneous factors, and no basis for asserting perversity so appeal dismissed.
His Honour Judge Reid QC
UKEAT/0474/04, [2005] UKEAT 0474 – 04 – 0702
Cited – Chohan v Derby Law Centre EAT 2-Mar-2004
EAT Employment Tribunal claim brought out of time because of Solicitor’s negligent advice. Application of British Coal Corporation -v- Keeble [1999] IRLR 337. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.224670
The court looked at the inference that a statute’s draughtsman could be assumed when using a phrase to rely on a known interpretation of that phrase.
Viscount Buckmaster said: ‘It has long been a well established principle to be applied in the consideration of Acts of Parliament that where a word of doubtful meaning has received a clear judicial interpretation, the subsequent statute which incorporates the same word or the same phrase in a similar context must be construed so that the word or phrase is interpreted according to the meaning that has previously been assigned to it.’
Viscount Buckmaster, Lord Russell of Killowen,Lord Macmillan
[1933] UKHL 3, (1933) 45 Ll L Rep 199, [1933] All ER Rep 52, 1933 SC (HL) 21, [1933] AC 402, 1933 SLT 338
Merchant Shipping (International Labour Conventions) Act, 1925 1
England and Wales
Cited – Attorney-General (ex relatione Yorkshire Derwent Trust Ltd) v Brotherton HL 5-Dec-1991
The appellants owned land through which flowed the river Derwent. Attempts were to be made to restore the river to navigability. The appellants denied that any public rights existed over the river.
Held: The 1932 Act could only give rise to a . .
Cited – A v Hoare; H v Suffolk County Council, Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs intervening; X and Y v London Borough of Wandsworth CA 12-Apr-2006
Each claimant sought damages for a criminal assault for which the defendant was said to be responsible. Each claim was to be out of the six year limitation period. In the first claim, the proposed defendant had since won a substantial sum from the . .
Explained – Regina v Chard HL 1983
The defendant appealed his conviction which had been obtained but based upon the evidence of a ‘super-grass’. His appeal failed, but the witness then withdrew his evidence. The matter was referred back to the court under the section, which then . .
Cited – Gallagher (Valuation Officer) v Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints HL 30-Jul-2008
The House considered whether certain properties of the Church were subject to non-domestic rating. Various buildings were on the land, and the officer denied that some fell within the exemptions, and in particular whether the Temple itself was a . .
Cited – Adorian v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis CA 23-Jan-2009
The claimant received injuries when arrested. He was later convicted of resisting arrest. The defendant relied on section 329 of the 2003 Act. The claimant said that the force used against him was grossly disproportionate. The commissioner appealed . .
Cited – Transport for London (London Underground Ltd) v Spirerose Ltd HL 30-Jul-2009
Compulsory Purchase Compensation – Land As it Is
The House considered the basis of calculation of compensation on the compulsory purchase of land without planning permission, but where permission would probably be granted. The appellant challenged the decision which had treated the probability as . .
Cited – Carey v HSBC Bank plc, Yunis v Barclays Bank plc and similar QBD 23-Dec-2009
(Manchester Mercantile Court) The court considered the effects in detail where a bank was unable to comply with a request under section 78 of the 1974 Act to provide a copy of the agreement signed by the client.
Held: The court set out to give . .
Applied – BBC Scotland v Souster SCS 7-Dec-2000
English and Scottish are Separate Racial Groups
The English and Scottish peoples are recognised as separate racial groups. Discrimination on the basis that someone was English or Scottish was therefore discrimination for the purposes of the 1976 Act. Since Parliament had not amended or defined . .
Cited – ZH and CN, Regina (on The Applications of) v London Boroughs of Newham and Lewisham SC 12-Nov-2014
The court was asked whether the 1977 Act required a local authorty to obtain a court order before taking possession of interim accommodation it provided to an apparently homeless person while it investigated whether it owed him or her a duty under . .
Cited – Routier and Another v Revenue and Customs CA 16-Sep-2016
Executors appealed against a decision that a residual gift in a will was not charitable and that it was therefore subject to Inheritance Tax arguing that the section if construed in this way was an unlawful restriction on the free movement of . .
Cited – Belhaj and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another SC 4-Jul-2018
Challenge to decision not to prosecute senior Intelligence Service officials for alleged offences in connection with his unlawful rendition and mistreatment in Libya. The issue here was whether on the hearing of the application for judicial review, . .
Cited – Belhaj and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another SC 4-Jul-2018
Challenge to decision not to prosecute senior Intelligence Service officials for alleged offences in connection with his unlawful rendition and mistreatment in Libya. The issue here was whether on the hearing of the application for judicial review, . .
Cited – Lalchan, Regina v CACD 27-May-2022
Conviction withoiut required Consent was Unsafe
Whether a conviction for an offence which requires the consent of the Attorney General before the proceedings are instituted can stand when no such consent was obtained.
Held: The appellant’s arguments were well-founded and his conviction on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.279695
Whether agency worker was employee for unfair dismissal claim.
[2005] EWCA Civ 490
England and Wales
See Also – Bunce v Postworth Ltd T/A Skyblue, Great Railway Maintenance Ltd T/A Carillion Rail EAT 29-Apr-2004
EAT Contract of Employment – Definition of employee. . .
Appeal from – Bunce v Postworth Ltd (T/A Skyblue) and Another EAT 2-Jul-2004
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.224514
Parental leave – not to be for a period of less than one week.
[2005] EWCA Civ 443
England and Wales
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.224517
Leave given for appeal to the House of Lords
[2005] EWCA Civ 400
England and Wales
Appeal from – J Botham v Ministry of Defence EAT 1-Nov-2004
EAT Practice and Procedure – Appellate jurisdiction/Reasons/Burns-Barke. . .
Leave to appeal – Serco Ltd v Lawson; Botham v Ministry of Defence; Crofts and others v Veta Limited HL 26-Jan-2006
Mr Lawson was employed by Serco as a security supervisor at the British RAF base on Ascension Island, which is a dependency of the British Overseas Territory of St Helena. Mr Botham was employed as a youth worker at various Ministry of Defence . .
See also – Botham v The Ministry of Defence QBD 26-Mar-2010
The claimant had been employed by the MOD. He was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct, and he was then placed on the list of persons unsuitable for work with children. He succeeded at the Tribunal in a claim for unfair and wrongful dismissal. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.224511
[2005] ScotCS CSIH – 35
Scotland
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.224391
The court considered the calculation of hours under the Regulations when the employee was on extended sickness leave of absence.
Held: Once an employee had exhausted their sick pay entitlement, it was not open to them in addition then to claim holiday pay in respect of the period for which he had been absent from work.
[2005] ICR 1149, [2005] EWCA Civ 441, Times 16-May-2005
England and Wales
Appeal from – Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Ainsworth, Kilic, Stringer, Thwaites EAT 4-Feb-2004
EAT Working Time Regulations – Holiday pay . .
See Also – Stringer and Others v Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs; Schultz-Hoff v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund ECJ 20-Jan-2009
(Grand Chamber) Several employees claimed that having been absent from work sick, they were entitled to carry forward their unused holiday entitlements, or if a former worker, to pay in lieu under the Working Time directive.
Held: The workers . .
At Court of Appeal – Revenue and Customs v Stringer, Ainsworth and Others HL 10-Jun-2009
In each case, the employee had retired after long term sickness. The Employment tribunal had upheld their ability to claim arrears of sickness pay arising under the 1998 Regulations, as an unlawful deduction from their wages. They now appealed . .
Cited – Russell and Others v Transocean International Resources Ltd and Others SC 7-Dec-2011
russell_transocean
The appellants worked on various shifts for the defendants in off-shore oil-fields. They were given on-shore rest breaks, which the employers said should count toward their holiday entitlements.
Held: The Court dismissed the employees’ appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.224328
The court considered a claim for work related stress. The claimant asserted that he had been harassed, intimidated and systematically undermined: ‘Many, alas, suffer breakdowns and depressive illnesses and a significant proportion could doubtless ascribe some at least some of their problems to the strains and stresses of their work situation: be it simply overworking, the tension of difficult relationships, career prospect worries, fears or feelings of discrimination or harassment, to take some examples. Unless, however, there was a real risk of breakdown which the claimant’s employers ought reasonably to have foreseen and they ought properly to have averted there can be no liability.’ (Simon Brown LJ)
Simon Brown LJ
[2001] EWCA Civ 395, [2001] All ER (D) 202
England and Wales
Cited – Walker v Northumberland County Council QBD 16-Nov-1994
The plaintiff was a manager within the social services department. He suffered a mental breakdown in 1986, and had four months off work. His employers had refused to provide the increased support he requested. He had returned to work, but again, did . .
Cited – Hartman v South Essex Mental Health and Community Care NHS Trust etc CA 19-Jan-2005
The court considered the liability of employers for stress injury to several employees.
Held: Though the principles of awarding damages for stress related psychiatric injury are the same as those for physical injury, the issues have still . .
Cited – Banks v Ablex Ltd CA 24-Feb-2005
The claimant appealed denial of her claim for damages for psychological injury. She complained that her employer had failed to prevent her and other female employees being bullied by a co-worker, and they committed a breach of statutory duty in . .
Cited – D v Intel Corporation (UK) Ltd QBD 23-May-2006
The claimant sought damages for stress incurred at work. She had suffered post natal depression and received counselling through her work and recovered. She suffered a second bout of depression after the birth of another child, but again was thought . .
Cited – Helen Green v DB Group Services (UK) Ltd QBD 1-Aug-2006
The claimant sought damages from her former employers, asserting that workplace bullying and harassment had caused injury to her health. She had had a long term history of depression after being abused as a child, and the evidence was conflicting, . .
Cited – Clark v The Chief Constable of Essex Police QBD 18-Sep-2006
The officer had retired on ill health grounds, and now sought damages from his chief constable saying that the duties imposed on him had been excessive, and had caused his injury by negligence, and that he had been bullied by co-workers and had not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222973
The claimants argued that civil servants in one government department could establish that civil servants in another department could stand as comparators in their equal pay claim.
Held: It was not necessarily the person with whom the workers have contracts of employment that determines comparability. The relevant body is the one ‘which is responsible for the inequality and which could restore equal treatment’. The body responsible for the state of affairs will often be the same employer of both the applicants and the comparators, but that is not necessarily so.
Mr Justice Gage The Honerable Mr Justice Maurice Kay Lord Justice Mummery Mr Justice Gage The Honerable Mr Justice Maurice Kay Lord Justice Mummery
[2005] EWCA Civ 138, [2005] ICR 750, [2005] IRLR 363,
England and Wales
Considered – 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 – 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 . .
Cited – Armstrong and others v Newcastle Upon Tyne NHS Hospital Trust CA 21-Dec-2005
The claimants claimed equal pay, asserting use of particular comparators. The Trust said that there was a genuine material factor justifying the difference in pay.
Held: To constitute a single source for the purpose of article 141, it is not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222866
[2002] EWCA Civ 1523
England and Wales
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.217643
Adjourned Ex Parte Preliminary Hearing of the appeal of W against a finding of an Employment Tribunal whereby his complaint of constructive unfair dismissal was dismissed.
[2001] UKEAT 0805 – 00 – 1605
England and Wales
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.203922
The claimant’s application for damages for an unlawful deduction from his wages had been dismissed as out of time. He appealed. He was claiming arrears of payments going back over years after prolonged disputes between his union and the employer.
Held: The tribunal had made no discernible error of law. However it had not made findings on two heads of claim and these were remitted to a fresh tribunal.
His Hon Judge Clark
[2002] UKEAT 0732 – 01 – 2603, EAT732/01
England and Wales
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.202671
[2001] EWCA Civ 1735
England and Wales
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.201466
Mummery P J
[1994] UKEAT 266 – 92 – 0612
England and Wales
See Also – D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 1-May-1995
. .
See Also – 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 . .
See Also – 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
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.210331
Peter Clark HHJ
[1998] UKEAT 199 – 98 – 2207, [1998] UKEAT 360 – 96 – 2207
England and Wales
See Also – D’Souza v Lambeth Borough Council CA 10-Dec-1997
. .
See Also – D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 1-May-1995
. .
See Also – 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 . .
See Also – 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
. .
Cited – D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 9-Oct-1997
. .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 1-Jul-1998
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.206560
[2002] UKEAT 284 – 01 – 0507
England and Wales
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.202963
[2002] UKEAT 692 – 01 – 0507
England and Wales
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.202990
Leave to appeal from refusal of claim for unfair dismissal
[2001] EWCA Civ 771
England and Wales
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.201048
TUPE
Hale, Pill, Mummery LJJ
[2002] EWCA Civ 464, [2002] IRLR 401, [2002] ICR 751, [2002] 2 CMLR 34, [2002] Emp LR 690
Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981
England and Wales
Appeal from – RCO Support Services Ltd, Aintree Hospital Trust v Unison v Binns L Mckinlay EAT 28-Jun-2000
EAT Transfer of Undertakings – Transfer. . .
Cited – Astle and others v Cheshire County Council and Omnisure Property Management Ltd EAT 20-May-2004
EAT Issue whether Employment Tribunal asked itself the right question and/or was perverse in failing to find that the principal reason for the Council’s changed arrangements was to thwart TUPE and hence that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.170254
Mrs Bennet was employed by the respondent. She had made complaints of race and sex discrimination. She was then dismissed, and claimed this was victimisation. Part way through the hearing, her representative failed in an application for an adjournment, and said that if he had been white, his application would have been granted. The tribunal refused to continue because of the allegation of discrimination made against itself. The case was to be relisted, but the respondent to make any application strike out the claim to the new tribunal. The claim was later struck out for the ‘scandalous’ behaviour of the advocate. The EAT eventually decided that it was wrong for the tribunal to have recused itself.
Held: The tribunal ought to have given the advocate an opportunity to withdraw his remark. His behaviour fell short of being scandalous, and the striking out was not proportionate. However it was not open to the EAT to have substituted its own decision, and the case must be reheard.
Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Sedley, And, Lord Justice Longmore
Times 28-Feb-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 223, [2006] ICR 655, [2002] IRLR 407, [2002] ICR 881
Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 1993 13(2)(e), Employment Tribunals (Constitution etc.) Regulations 1993, Employment Tribunals Act 1996 35(1)
England and Wales
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.167643
[2017] NIIT 00093 – 16FET
Northern Ireland
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.657093
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 or otherwise.
Gazette 14-Jan-1998
England and Wales
See Also – D’Souza v Lambeth Borough Council CA 10-Dec-1997
. .
See Also – D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 1-May-1995
. .
See Also – 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 . .
See Also – 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
. .
Cited – D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 9-Oct-1997
. .
See Also – D’Souza v Lambeth Borough Council CA 10-Dec-1997
. .
Cited – D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 1-Jul-1998
. .
Cited – D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth and Another EAT 22-Jul-1998
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.80142
EIB agents – Action for annulment – Admissibility – Extension of the probationary period – Termination of the contract – Conditions – Action for damages
[2005] EUECJ T-275/02
European
Order – D v EIB ECFI 6-Dec-2002
Application for interim measures. Order only. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.636787
[2017] NIFET 00004 – 17FET
Northern Ireland
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.657092
[2018] EWCA Civ 2461
England and Wales
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.628702
(Judgment) Public service – Officials – Promotion – Promotion exercise 2015 – Article 43 and Article 45 (1) of the Staff Regulations – Obligation to state reasons – Comparative examination of the merits – Use of languages ??in the context of the duties of directors assigned to functions linguistic and by administrators assigned to functions other than linguistic – Justified absences – Manifest error of assessment
T-617/16, [2017] EUECJ T-617/16
European
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.601048
An accountant engineer employed by the plaintiffs assigned to the defendants the copyright in a work derived from public lectures he had given. The plaintiffs obtained an injunction saying that the work contained confidential material and that having been prepared in the course of his employment, the copyright belonged to them. The publishers appealed.
Held: The defendant’s appeal succeeded in part. The claim of breach of confidence was not supported by the evidence and failed. The bulk of the work was derived from public lectures given outside the scope of the author’s employment as an accountant, and he owned and could assign the copyrights. In particular it seemed that some was written after the termination of the employment. Certain parts of it however were created as part of his employment and were not his to assign. There was a mixed contract with certain parts created under a contract of employment, and certain under a contract for services.
Sir Raymoind Evershed MR, Denning and Morris LJJ
[1952] 1 TLR 101, [1952] RCOC 10
England and Wales
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.430518
Union’s appeal against order made an application for control of forthcoming strike.
[2010] EWCA Civ 400
England and Wales
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.408592
[2004] NIFET 104 – 01
Northern Ireland
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.237348
[2005] EWCA Civ 5
England and Wales
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.231670
[2003] NIFET 181 – 97
Northern Ireland
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.237353
EAT Disability Discrimination – Reasonable adjustments
His Honour Judge Reid QC
UKEAT/0609/04/CK, [2005] UKEAT 0609 – 04 – 0402
Disability Discrimination Act 1995
England and Wales
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.224119
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Constructive dismissal – Employer repudiated contract of employment by not making payments due to employee – employee worked on after employer made it clear that payments due to employee would not be made – was this affirmation of contract of employment?
The Honourable Mr Justice Silber
UKEAT/0548/04, [2005] UKEAT 0548 – 04 – 0903
England and Wales
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223920
EAT Unfair Dismissal
Employment Tribunal made findings against the Applicant relating to malice and motive which were not the Respondent’s case and were not put to her. Lucas v Chichester Diocesan Housing Association Limited UKEAT/0713/04. Remitted to fresh employment tribunal with directions to consider ACAS conciliation of long running litigation.
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Constructive dismissal.
His Honour Judge McMullen QC
UKEAT/0684/04, [2005] UKEAT 0684 – 04 – 0802
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223919
EAT Practice and Procedure – Costs
The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (President)
UKEAT/0839/04, [2005] UKEAT 0839 – 04 – 2202
England and Wales
See Also – Royal Mail Group Plc v A Sharma EAT 29-Sep-2004
EAT Practice and Procedure – New evidence on appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.224064
Which employees fell within the definition of ‘Participating employees’ in the pension scheme.
The Honourable Mr Justice Patten
[2005] EWHC 446 (Ch)
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223782
Calculation of compensation in unfair dismissal cases where the employer fails to comply with an order for reinstatement.
[2005] EWCA Civ 217
England and Wales
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223576
EAT Applicant resigned ahead of disciplinary hearing. He asserted constructive dismissal. Employment Tribunal held he resigned in expectation of good reference enabling him to take another job. On appeal he contended (1) The Employment Tribunal had failed to look at the overall picture of the employer’s conduct towards him. (2) Certain findings of fact were perverse. (3) The Employment Tribunal erred in law in concluding the employer’s conduct was not causative of his resignation.
Held: (1) The Employment Tribunal had looked at the overall picture. (2) The findings of fact were not perverse. (3) The Employment Tribunal made findings of fact as to the cause of his resignation.
Reid QC J
[2005] UKEAT 0046 – 04 – 1102
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223094
Appeal against heads of damages awarded on finding of unfair dismissal.
Rimer J
[2005] UKEAT 0693 – 04 – 1102, [2005] ICR 896
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223097
EAT Race Discrimination
1. The employer’s appeal against the majority ET’s judgment upholding the Claimant’s unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. The ET did not substitute its own judgment for that of the employer when it decided this procedurally fair dismissal was a sanction which no reasonable employer would have adopted.
2. The ET erred in law when it declined to follow binding precedent of the EAT and so misapplied the reverse burden of proof for sex and race discrimination cases.
3. Having made firm findings that the employer’s actions lacked reality and were absurd, it was perverse not to carry those findings across in its examination of the explanations given by the employer for its treatment of the Claimant.
4. The case was remitted to a fresh ET with a narrower remit to determine the sex and race discrimination claims in the light of: the direction of law, the findings on unfair dismissal being upheld, the abandonment of certain grounds of appeal and, on the EAT’s finding of an error, the EAT’s substitution of a finding.
5. The ET’s observations about the lack of proportionality in this case were accepted and a plea issued for conciliation to be considered by the parties.
[2005] UKEAT 0573 – 04 – 1502, UKEAT/0573/04 and UKEAT/0574/04
See Also – 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 . .
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.
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223095
EAT Disability Discrimination
ET decision on section 6 of the Disability Discrimination Act reversed because of decision of House of Lords in Archibald v Fife Council 2004] IRLR 651. ET had followed decision in Court of Session that House of Lords reversed.
His Honour Judge Serota QC
UKEAT/0770/04, [2004] UKEAT 0770 – 04 – 3011
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223158
EAT Practice and Procedure – Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity – Employment Tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal are bound by the Decision of the Court of Appeal in Dacas v Brook Street Bureau [2004] IRLR 358 and that Decision was not decided per incuriam.
His Honour Judge Serota QC
UKEAT/0661/04, [2005] UKEAT 0661 – 04 – 2502
England and Wales
Appeal from – Cable and Wireless Plc v Muscat CA 9-Mar-2006
The worker was employed via an employment agency. The contract the company had was with the agency, and the agency had the contract with the worker. The worker claimed an implied contract of employment with the end-user.
Held: The end-user . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223161
EAT Public Interest Disclosure – On the evidence and on the chronology presented to the Employment Tribunal there were no grounds for finding that the Claimant’s protected disclosures were not made in good faith. The Tribunal failed to make a finding as to the reason for dismissal and that issue was remitted. The Tribunal did not err in its approach to the construction of the notice term in the contract of employment.
His Honour Judge Mc Mullen QC
UKEAT/0713/04/DA, [2005] UKEAT 0713 – 04 – 0702
Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998
Cited – Bachnak v Emerging Markets Partnership (Europe) Ltd EAT 27-Jan-2006
EAT The claimant had worked as an adviser for the respondent identifying investment opportunities. He said he had been unfairly dismissed after disclosing that the company had overpaid for an investment. He now . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223092
EAT Practice and Procedure – Time for appealing – Finding that Notice of Appeal (containing 21 pages including necessary documents), whose faxing to the EAT had commenced prior to 4.00 pm on the 42nd day but had not been completed (and not printed out at all) until after 4.00 pm (printing commencing at 4.06 pm) was not out of time.
Burton P J
[2005] UKEAT 1146 – 04 – 1402, UKEATPA/1146/04
England and Wales
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223093
[2001] EWCA Civ 1991
England and Wales
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222977
The claimant appealed denial of her claim for damages for psychological injury. She complained that her employer had failed to prevent her and other female employees being bullied by a co-worker, and they committed a breach of statutory duty in failing to prevent harassment under the 1997 Act.
Held: There was insufficient evidence to say that the employer knew enough of the alleged bullying to make him responsible. The 1997 Act required the harassment acts complained of to have been directed at the same person. That had not been shown. The judge had evidence before him which supported his conclusion. Appeal dismissed.
[2005] EWCA Civ 173, Times 21-Mar-2005
Protection from Harassment Act 1997
England and Wales
Cited – Daiichi UK Ltd and others v Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty and Others; Asahi Glass UK ltd and others v Same; Eisaai Ltd v Same; Yam,anouchi Pharma UK Ltd and others v Same; Sankyo Pharma UK Ltd and others v Same QBD 13-Oct-2003
The claimants sought injunctions and orders under the act against the respondent in respect of acts of harrassment intended variously to dissuade the companies form engaging in activities disapproved by the respondents.
Held: The Act was not . .
Cited – Lau v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 29-Mar-2000
Two alleged incidents might be sufficient to be seen as a course of conduct and found an allegation of harassment under the Act, but any distance in time between them might suggest that they could not be seen as one course of conduct. Here a . .
Cited – Thomas v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Simon Hughes CA 18-Jul-2001
A civilian police worker had reported officers for racist remarks. The newspaper repeatedly printed articles and encouraged correspondence which was racially motivated, to the acute distress of the complainant.
Held: Repeated newspaper stories . .
Cited – Pratt v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 21-Jun-2001
Whilst the law clearly allowed prosecutions under the Act after no more than two incidents of harassment, nevertheless, prosecutors should look to the reality of whether the acts complained of did in fact amount to a course of conduct under the Act. . .
Cited – Waters v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis HL 27-Jul-2000
A policewoman, having made a complaint of serious sexual assault against a fellow officer complained again that the Commissioner had failed to protect her against retaliatory assaults. Her claim was struck out, but restored on appeal.
Held: . .
Cited – Sutherland v Hatton; Barber v Somerset County Council and similar CA 5-Feb-2002
Defendant employers appealed findings of liability for personal injuries consisting of an employee’s psychiatric illness caused by stress at work.
Held: Employers have a duty to take reasonable care for the safety of their employees. There are . .
Cited – Hartman v South Essex Mental Health and Community Care NHS Trust etc CA 19-Jan-2005
The court considered the liability of employers for stress injury to several employees.
Held: Though the principles of awarding damages for stress related psychiatric injury are the same as those for physical injury, the issues have still . .
Cited – Barber v Somerset County Council HL 1-Apr-2004
A teacher sought damages from his employer after suffering a work related stress breakdown.
Held: The definition of the work expected of him did not justify the demand placed upon him. The employer could have checked up on him during his . .
Cited – Garrett v Camden London Borough Council CA 16-Mar-2001
The court considered a claim for work related stress. The claimant asserted that he had been harassed, intimidated and systematically undermined: ‘Many, alas, suffer breakdowns and depressive illnesses and a significant proportion could doubtless . .
Cited – Rorrison v West Lothian College and Lothian Regional Council OHCS 21-Jul-1999
The pursuer, a nurse, claimed that she suffered psychological injuries as a result of her treatment at work by two superiors.
Held: The court could find nothing in the pleadings: ‘which, if proved, could establish that Andrews and Henning . .
Cited – Pratley v Surrey County Council CA 25-Jul-2003
The claimant sought damages for personal injury namely stress suffered in the course of her work as a care manager. She said that she had been overworked, and suffered depression when a proposal for reducing the work load remained unimplemented. The . .
Cited – Robertson (Ap) v The Scottish Ministers SCS 22-Nov-2007
The claimant sought damages saying that she had been bullied and harassed at her work as a prison officer. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222936
The applicant was a school nurse who was suspended after disclosing facts about her employers. She said that the employers were in breach of the Act in failing to re-instate her once the 1998 Act came into force.
Held: The events about which complaint could be made all came before the Act came into effect in July 1999. A continuing failure to lift the suspension after that date was not itself was not an act of detriment. No cause of action arose.
[2005] EWCA Civ 135, Times 09-Mar-2005
Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998
England and Wales
See Also – Pinnington v Swansea City and County and Another CA 19-Aug-2004
. .
See Also – Pinnington v Swansea City and County and Another CA 19-Aug-2004
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222865
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Various issues of quantum resolved in respect of appeal against Remedies Decision relating to earlier finding in favour of Appellant of detriment due to protected disclosure (s47B) and automatic unfair dismissal (s103A). Primary points were (i) in a case where there was 2.5% pa discount for accelerated payment in respect of some elements of award, also proper to award 2.5% pa premium for delayed payment of others as part of just and equitable compensation, even though interest not statutorily awardable (ii) the Employment Tribunal was correct to restrict compensation for injury to feelings under s47B by stopping it when it concluded that the repudiatory breaches subsequently accepted as constructive dismissal began, rather than as at the date of the constructive dismissal (iii) the Employment Tribunal did not err in reducing compensation by 50% on the just and equitable ground by reference to blameworthy conduct which was not contributory fault by reference to percentage chance of fair termination resulting from that conduct (Devis v Atkins).
The Honourable Mr Justice Burton
UKEAT/0339/04, [2004] UKEAT 0339 – 04 – 1711, [2005] IRLR 449, [2005] ICR 874
See Also – A V Melia v Magna Kansei Ltd EAT 16-Nov-2004
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Exclusions including worker . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222816
EAT Unfair Dismissal
When an employee is dismissed and then reinstated on an internal appeal it is open to the parties to agree reinstatement as a matter of contract and such an arrangement albeit made after the gap in the continuity of employment, fills in the gap for the purposes of section 212 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Ingram v Foxon [1984] ICR 685 EAT followed; Murphy v A Birrell and Sons [1978] IRLR 458 EAT not followed.
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Exclusions including worker/jurisdiction.
His Honour Judge Mcmullen QC
UKEAT/0544/04, [2005] UKEAT 0544 – 04 – 1002, [2005] IRLR 443
Cited – Prakash v Wolverhampton City Council EAT 1-Sep-2006
EAT The Claimant was employed on a fixed term contract. During the terms of the contract he was dismissed for misconduct and made an application to the Employment Tribunal (ET) claiming unfair dismissal. He . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222804
Application for leave to appeal. Leave granted but claimant warned as to likelihood of success.
Lord Justice Wall
[2005] EWCA Civ 104
Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 16
England and Wales
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 . .
Appeal from – Bunning v G T Bunning and Sons Ltd EAT 1-Jul-2003
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Contributory fault . .
Leave – Suzanne Bunning v G T Bunning and Sons Ltd CA 27-Jul-2005
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222784
In giving their decision, the court reminded tribunals when preparing their judgments, to make sure the reasons were user friendly. Here time had been wasted with confusion about the Roman Numerals used to number the reasons.
Mummery LJ, Chadwick LJ, Tuckey LJ
[2005] EWCA Civ 133, Times 05-Apr-2005, [2005] IRLR 376
Disability Discrimination Act 1996
England and Wales
Cited – High Quality Lifestyles Ltd v Watts EAT 10-Apr-2006
EAT The Employment Tribunal had erred in its construction of direct discrimination under s3A(5) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 as amended when it failed to construct a correct hypothetical comparator . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222730
The unions sought recognition in representing the employees, and a ballot was undertaken. Though a majority of the workers voting opted for representation, their numbers voting fell four below the minimum required. The unions said that not all employees had received their ballot papers and applied to respondent for an order requiring the ballot to be run again. The employer challenged by this judicial review the decision of the respondent that it had jurisdiction to hear such a request.
Held: The powers of the respondent were statutory. The words in the section took care to ensure that the ballot was properly run, and the words of the statute could not be stretched to give the respondent the jurisdiction it had taken to itself. Review granted.
David J
[2005] EWHC 112 (Admin), Times 12-Apr-2005
Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
Appeal from – Regina, (Ultraframe (UK) Ltd) v Central Arbitration Committee CA 22-Apr-2005
Two trade unions had sought recognition. Ballots had been held which almost secured recognition but fell a handful of votes short. The Unions criticised the way the ballots had been conducted, saying that a number of employees had not received . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222511
The Tribunal had given credit for the full amount of incapacity benefit which the employee had received during the notice period. He appealed on the grounds that it ought not to have done so. There was a conflict of authority on the point in the Tribunal.
The Honourable Mr Justice Burton
[2005] UKEAT 0438 – 04 – 1701, UKEAT/0438/04, [2005] IRLR 234
England and Wales
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 – 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 – 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.
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222391
[2005] ScotCS CSIH – 12
Scotland
Appeal from – Hynd v Armstrong and others EAT 20-Sep-2004
. .
Appeal from – Hynd v Armstrong and others SCS 27-Feb-2007
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222094
[2002] UKEAT 0357 – 99 – 0708
England and Wales
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222109
ECJ Social Policy – Directive 98/59/EC – Collective redundancies – Consultation with workers’ representatives – Notification to the competent public authority – Concept of ‘redundancy’ – Time at which redundancy takes effect.
The ECJ observed:
‘The case in which the employer ‘is contemplating’ collective redundancies and has drawn up a ‘project’ to that end corresponds to a situation in which no decision has yet been taken. By contrast, the notification to a worker that his or her contract of employment has been termi nated is the expression of a decision to sever the employment relationship, and the actual cessation of that relationship on the expiry of the period of notice is no more than the effect of that decision.
Thus, the terms used by the Community legislature indicate that the obligations to consult and to notify arise prior to any decision by the employer to terminate contracts of employment.
Finally, this interpretation is confirmed, in regard to the procedure for consultation of workers’ representatives, by the purpose of the Directive, as set out in Article 2(2), which is to avoid terminations of contracts of employment or to reduce the number of such terminations. The achievement of that purpose would be jeopardised if the consultation of workers’ representatives were to be sub sequent to the employer’s decisio
The answer to the first question must therefore be that Articles 2 to 4 of the Directive must be construed as meaning that the event constituting redundancy consists in the declaration by an employer of his intention to terminate the contract of employment’.
C-188/03, [2005] EUECJ C-188/03, [2005] IRLR 310, [2005] 1 CMLR 42
European
Cited – Unison v Leicestershire County Council CA 29-Jun-2006
The council had dismissed all workers within a group of employees, and invited them to re-apply for their jobs. The council now appealed a protective award made on the basis that there had been inadequate consultation with the union.
Held: The . .
Cited – UK Coal Mining Ltd v National Union of Mineworkers (Northumberland Area) and Another EAT 27-Sep-2007
The employer appealed against a protective award made for failing to consult the union on prospective redundancies.
Held: The appeal failed. The duty to consult arose as soon as the redundancies were fixed as a clear, even if there had been . .
Applied – Leicestershire County Council v Unison EAT 2-Sep-2005
EAT Redundancy: Protective Award
Employment Tribunal correctly applied the judgment in Susie Radin v GMB [2004] ICR 893 in its approach to the calculation of a protective award for one group of workers, . .
Cited – X v Mid Sussex Citizens Advice Bureau and Another SC 12-Dec-2012
The appellant was disabled, had legal qualifications, and worked with the respondent as a volunteer. She had sought assistance under the Disability Discrimination Act, now the 2012 Act, saying that she counted as a worker. The tribunal and CA had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222060
Staff Regulations
T-267/03, [2005] EUECJ T-267/03
European
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222062
[2004] UKEAT 0118 – 04 – 2112
England and Wales
Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.221510
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 struck out. The employee said she had withdrawn them.
Held: The withdrawal of tribunal proceedings must be unequivocal. It would be better normally for the tribunal to make an order dismissing the claim. In this case, as opposed to Sajid, the claimant’s withdrawal of her case was not made clear.
Lord Justice Peter Gibson Lord Justice Buxton Lord Justice Wall
[2005] EWCA Civ 10, Times 25-Jan-2005
England and Wales
Cited – Sajid v Sussex Muslim Society 2002
It was not an abuse of process to seek to pursue an employment claim in the High Court where the claim begun in the tribunal was for breach of contract, unfair dismissal or redundancy, and the total amount of the claim might exceed the tribunal’s . .
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 EAT 12-Sep-2005
EAT Practice and Procedure – Striking-out/dismissal.
EAT Practice and Procedure – Striking-out/dismissal. . .
See Also – London Borough of Enfield v Sivanandan CA 29-Jun-2006
Application for civil restraint order. . .
See Also – Sivanandan v London Borough of Enfield EAT 19-Oct-2006
EAT Practice and Procedure – Estoppel or Abuse of Process. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.221541
EAT Maternity Rights and Paternity Leave
Time of work necessitated by unexpected failure of baby-sitter. It is not necessary for the ‘reason’ in section 57A(2) Employment Rights Act to be articulated with any formality. It was clear to the Respondent that the Claimant’s case fell within section 57A(2) and the Employment Tribunal had construed the section too restrictively. It is a right to be exercised without formality by parents in difficult circumstances. Qua applied.
EAT Maternity Rights and Parental Leave – Detriment.
Her Honour Judge McMullen QC
[2004] UKEAT 0295 – 04 – 0111, UKEAT/0295/04, 0295/04
England and Wales
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.
Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.221570
[2004] EWCA Civ 1755
England and Wales
Appeal from – Hawkins v N Darken T/A Sawbridgeworth Motorcycles EAT 20-Jul-2004
EAT Contract of Employment – Definition of employee . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.220665
[2004] UKEAT 0353 – 04 – 0211
England and Wales
Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.220758
Whether there had been victimisation after discrimination claim.
[2004] EWCA Civ 565
England and Wales
Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.220724
[2004] UKEAT 0338 – 04 – 2212
England and Wales
Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.220760
EAT The Tribunal did not err in law in rejecting the Appellant’s argument that the Respondents were barred by issue estoppel from pursuing their claims. However the Tribunal did err in law in its construction of the Framework Agreement and the 1994 Operating Agreement as regards pay for public/bank holidays worked.
Richardson HHJ
[2004] UKEAT 0589 – 04 – 1312
Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.220611
15 day ET hearing postponed because of surgery of key witness, witness ordered by the Chairman.
McMullen QC HHJ
[2004] UKEAT 0726 – 04 – 3009
England and Wales
Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.220599
Application for permission to appeal.
[2002] EWCA Civ 1505
England and Wales
Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.217717
[1997] UKEAT 237 – 96 – 2102
England and Wales
Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.207270
Application for leave
[2001] EWCA Civ 1390
England and Wales
Appeal from – Walji v Great Ormond Street Hospital EAT 26-Apr-2001
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.201331
Application for leave to appeal.
Mummery LJ
[2001] EWCA Civ 1846
England and Wales
At EAT – ALM Medical Services Ltd v Bladon EAT 19-Jan-2001
. .
See Also – ALM (Medical Services) Ltd v Bladon CA 10-Jul-2001
. .
Application for leave – ALM Medical Services Limited v Bryan Bladon CA 26-Jul-2002
The employee claimed that he had been unlawfully dismissed, and that his dismissal broke the protection given to whistleblowers under the Act. The employer appealed.
Held: In such claims it was necessary first for the tribunal to establish . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.201460
Transfer of employment
Maurice Kay J
[2002] UKEAT 1292 – 00 – 0507
England and Wales
Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.202994
Appeal from finding of unfair dismissal of the respondent and 342 others.
Charles J
[2001] UKEAT 1445 – 99 – 1605
England and Wales
Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.203918
Appeal from finding of breach of confidence
Nicklin J
[2019] EWHC 880 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.635960
EAT CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Notice and pay in lieu
Ill health retirement. Claimant’s application having been accepted by pension fund trustees. Employment Tribunal’s finding that Respondent liable for pay in lieu of notice reversed on appeal.
[2011] UKEAT 0032 – 10 – 2601
England and Wales
Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.430294
Lady Justice Hallett
[2012] EWCA Civ 1578, [2013] IRLR 305, [2013] Eq LR 124
England and Wales
Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.470108
[2000] UKEAT 1409 – 98 – 0510
England and Wales
Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.265555
EAT Redundancy – Collective consultation and information
His Honour Judge Pugsley
[2004] UKEAT 0198 – 04 – 0408, UKEAT/0198/04
England and Wales
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; . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.220425
[2004] EWCA Civ 1539
Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
England and Wales
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.220339
[2004] EWCA Civ 1532
England and Wales
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.220342
EAT Contract of Employment
A local authority which engaged a teacher subject to a condition subsequent of satisfactory police checks was entitled to bring the contract to an end forthwith when the checks were unsatisfactory.
McMullen QC HHJ
[2004] UKEAT 0928 – 03 – 3009
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.220391
[2004] EWHC 90034 (Costs)
England and Wales
See Also – McPherson v BNP Paribas SA (London Branch) CA 14-May-2004
The claimant withdrew his claim in the Employment Tribunal. By then, his employer had incurred very substantial legal costs. He appealed against the order for costs against him.
Held: The tribunal had wrongly asked whether the withdrawal of . .
Cited – Ramsay and others v Bowercross Construction Ltd and Another EAT 14-Aug-2008
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Costs
Costs – whether a party can recover by way of costs counsel’s fees (yes) and those of a non legally qualified adviser, as defined in s.71 CandLSA 1990 (no). Employment . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.220200
The claim against the defendant at the tribunal had been settled by a compromise which had then been the subject of an order by the tribunal. The Revenue sought to charge the payment to income tax.
Held: It had been paid ‘in connection with’ the termination of his employment, was less than pounds 30,000 and so was outside a charge to tax. S131(1) extended the meaning of ’emolument’ and the extended meaning included such payments.
Lord Justice Peter Gibson Lady Justice Arden Lord Justice Clarke
[2004] EWCA Civ 1657, Times 12-Jan-2005
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 148
England and Wales
Appeal from – Wilson (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Clayton ChD 29-Apr-2004
Taxability of compensation paid on compromise of claims after dismissal. The employer introduced new terms, withdrawing car benefits. Having refused the new terms the taxpayer was dismissed. A tribunal held him unfairly dismissed. The council . .
Cited – Shilton v Wilmshurst HL 7-Feb-1991
The taxpayer was transferred from one football club to another. He was paid andpound;75,000 to persuade him to move. The revenue appealed a decision that this was not a sum taxable as an emolument under Schedule E by the new employer.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.220054
EAT Practice and Procedure – Admissibility of evidence – The Tribunal did not comply with its duty to resolve issues of fact and assess the credibility of witnesses, with at least succinct reasons. The Tribunal erred in discounting, without any assessment, what was in effect ‘recent complaint’ evidence.
His Honour Judge Richardson
[2004] UKEAT 0630 – 04 – 1011, UKEAT/0630/04
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.220084
EAT The two appeals raised questions as to (i) whether the Chairman of an employment tribunal had misdirected herself in relation to an application to amend an originating application, and (ii) as to the jurisdiction of an employment tribunal under The Employment Tribunals (Constitutions and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 to review its own previous orders.
The court accepted the appellant’s argument: ‘As for the point that the thought behind the proposed joinder of SC was the wish to be ‘proofed against the insolvency of the appropriate Respondent’, Mr Davey submitted that this too was irrelevant to the exercise of the discretion that Ms Hyde was asked to exercise. The background was that STUK had ceased to trade and Mr Davey squarely accepts that Mr Onwuka had become concerned that it could not satisfy any liability he might establish against it. Why, however, if he has an arguable claim against a related company which might also be made severally liable to him, should he not be entitled to join that company as a respondent? It is usual for claimants to want to join respondents who will be good for any liability that may be established, and there is nothing wrong with that. None of the submissions advanced by the respondents had any merit or substance in them as a matter of law, and there was no proper basis on which Ms Hyde could properly accept any of them.’
he Honourable Mr Justice Rimer
[2004] UKEAT 0843 – 04 – 2611, UKEAT/0843/04 and 0853/04
Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993 3(7), Employment Tribunals (Constitutions and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004
Cited – Cocking v Sandhurst (Stationers) Ltd NIRC 1974
The Appellant employee had applied for leave to amend his first application by substituting the name of the parent company. The Tribunal held that the rules of procedure relating to time limits went to their jurisdiction and that the amended . .
See Also – Onwuka v Spherion Technology (UK) Ltd and others EAT 6-Feb-2008
EAT Transfer of Undertakings: Transfer
The Appellant was employed by R1. He worked for a particular consultancy in R1’s business. That part of R1’s business was sold. The only issue remaining in the EAT was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219994
EAT Disability Discrimination – Justification
His Honour Judge Ansell
UKEAT/0459/04, [2004] UKEAT 0459 – 04 – 1511
England and Wales
Cited – Mid-Staffordshire General Hospitals NHS Trust v Cambridge EAT 4-Mar-2003
EAT The claimant had presented claims of sex and disability discrimination and victimisation. She suffered injury to her throat when builders demolished a wall near her workstation.
Held: The employer’s . .
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.
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219846