Category: Employment

Mensah v West Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust and others: EAT 16 Jul 1997

Citations:

[1997] UKEAT 557 – 97 – 1607

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

See Also – Mensah v West Middlesex University Hospitals and others EAT 27-Feb-1998
. .
See Also – Mensah v West Middlesex University Hospitals and others EAT 1-May-1998
. .
See Also – Mensah v West Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust and others EAT 23-Jul-1999
. .
See Also – Mensah v West Middlesex University Hospitals and others CA 10-Jul-2001
. .
See Also – Mensah v West Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust and Another EAT 18-Jun-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.207660

Clancey Ltd v Akram: EAT 20 Oct 1997

Judges:

Lord Johnston

Citations:

[1997] UKEAT 1097 – 96 – 2010

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – London Borough of Hackney v Benn CA 31-Jul-1996
The Court considered the role of an Employment Tribunal in assessing an employer’s classification of conduct as gross misconduct, justifying summary dismissal.
Held: If an issue of conduct is being considered upon the facts of the case that is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.207758

Aparau v Iceland Frozen Foods Plc: EAT 13 Oct 1997

Citations:

[1997] UKEAT 744 – 97 – 1310

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See Also – Aparau v Iceland Frozen Foods Plc EAT 9-Oct-1995
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Aparau v Iceland Frozen Foods Plc EAT 12-Mar-1998
. .
See Also – Aparau v Iceland Frozen Foods Plc CA 12-Nov-1999
Where a case had been remitted by the EAT to a tribunal for reconsideration in respect of matters specified by the EAT, the tribunal’s consideration was to be limited to those matters remitted. It was not open to the tribunal to consider matters . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.207740

Unwin v Sackville School and Another: EAT 30 Jul 1997

Citations:

[1997] UKEAT 568 – 97 – 3007

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

See Also – Unwin v Sackville School and Another EAT 1-Mar-1998
. .
See Also – Unwin v Sackville School and Another EAT 15-Dec-1999
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal . .
See Also – Unwin v Sackville School and Another EAT 1-Feb-2000
The question is whether, a full Employment Tribunal having been empanelled to hear and determine the appellant, Mrs Unwin’s complaint of victimisation contrary to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Chairman of that Employment Tribunal, Mr Rich, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.207693

Anywanwu and Another v South Bank Students Union and others: EAT 12 Sep 1997

Citations:

[1997] UKEAT 606 – 97 – 1209

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

See Also – Anyanwu and Another v South Bank Students’ Union South Bank University CA 19-Mar-1999
The applicants sought an extension of time to apply to set aside leave to appeal given to their opponents.
Held: The cause of the respondent seemed weak, but raised a point of law which needed determination and the appeal should be allowed to . .
See Also – Anyanwu and Another v South Bank Students’ Union and Another CA 4-Nov-1999
A university was not acting in a racially discriminatory manner because of the acts of its student union in dismissing two workers after the university had itself expelled them as students. The term ‘knowingly aided’ in the Act was not to be read so . .
See Also – Anyanwu and Another v South Bank Student Union and Another HL 24-May-2001
The university had imposed a new constitution on its students union, which resulted in the dismissal of the claimant. He sought to assert racial discrimination.
Held: The concept of ‘aiding’ somebody in committing discriminatory behaviour . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.207700

A v B: EAT 7 Jul 1997

The claimant sought to appeal against rejection of her claim for sex and race discrimination.
Held: The claimant had disappeared not leaving her contact details with her solicitors. The grounds of appeal were hopeless and inadequate. Appeal refused.

Citations:

[1997] UKEAT 364 – 97 – 0707

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.207591

Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc: EAT 9 Jul 1997

Judges:

Kirkwood J

Citations:

[1997] UKEAT 772 – 97 – 0907

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc EAT 20-Feb-1998
. .
See Also – Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc EAT 15-Jul-1999
. .
See Also – Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc EAT 12-May-2000
. .
See Also – Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc CA 29-Jan-2001
Renewed application for permission to appeal. . .
See Also – Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc EAT 30-Apr-2001
Preliminary hearing on appeal – application for adjournment. Dismissed on papers. . .
See Also – Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc CA 5-Nov-2001
Leave to appeal refused. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.207592

Noorani v Merseyside TEC Ltd: EAT 17 Jun 1997

The claimant appealed against the dismissal of his complaint of race discrimination saying that the tribunal had erred in not issuing a witness summons. The tribunal had said that the potential evidence was not relevant.
Held: There had been an error of law in the tribunal’s approach and the matter was remitted. Employment Tribunals have a wide discretion in making case management orders.

Judges:

Hull QC J

Citations:

[1997] UKEAT 55 – 96 – 1706

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Dada v Metal Box Co Ltd NIRC 1974
Sir John Donaldson sets out the considerations when a witness order is sought in an employment dispute before the court. He said: ‘We are quite clear that tribunals have a discretion in deciding whether or not to issue witness orders. There is no . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Merseyside Tec Limited v Noorani CA 21-Nov-1997
Application for leave to appeal. The respondent had said that the EAT had erred in overturning the tribunal chair’s decision not to issue witness summonses.
Held: Leave was granted. . .
See Also – Noorani v Merseyside TEC Limited CA 19-Oct-1998
The claimant had claimed race discrimination. The tribunal declined to order the issue of witness summonses. The EAT overturned that decision on the basis that the tribunal had not recognised that it had a discretion to issue the summonses, and had . .
See Also – Noorani v Merseyside TEC Limited EAT 21-Apr-1999
A tribunal’s discretion not to grant witness summonses because the witnesses appeared to be only of limited relevance was not to be interfered with, save where it was unreasonable. A tribunal can always act to remedy the refusal later if this . .
Cited – Punjab National Bank (International) Ltd and Others v Gosain EAT 7-Jan-2014
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Preliminary issues – Whether court recordings of relevant meetings prior to Claimant’s alleged dismissal were to be admissible in evidence at trial insofar as they involved private . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.207559

Selfridges Ltd v Malik: EAT 24 Apr 1997

The statutory cap on damages awards in unfair dismissal cases included the award for lost earnings.

Citations:

[1997] UKEAT 1352 – 96 – 2404, [1998] ICR 268

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Parry – National Westminster Bank plc CA 1-Nov-2004
The employee had been found to be unfairly dismissed. The company did not re-engage him, and he sought as part of his damages, the lost earnings up to the date of the hearing. The employer said these should be included within the overall damages . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.207436

London Borough of Lambeth v Blandford: EAT 20 May 1997

The tribunal considered making an order to strike out Lambeth’s case for failure to comply with orders for directions made by the Tribunal. On the question of the circumstances in which a striking out would be justified under rule 4 of the Tribunal rules the Logicrose case was cited.
Held: ‘We, for our part, would doubt whether Virdee [another decision of the Appeal Tribunal] is not a little too favourable to someone in Lambeth’s position because it is plainly the case, on authority, that if there is deliberate and wilful contumacious disobedience of an order of the Court then the person so responsible for such behaviour can find his or her case struck out, notwithstanding that a fair trial might still be possible. But where conduct of that high degree of blameworthiness is not proven, then the test suggested by the EAT in Virdee, we would say, is correct, namely that the Court has to consider whether any judgment ultimately obtained could not be considered to be fair between the parties. Here, there was and is no evidence that the substantive hearing in this case would necessarily, in the events that had occurred by the 2nd December 1996, have been unfair, or would be unfair, by reason of Lambeth’s delays and failures in relation to their non-compliance with the order.’

Judges:

Lindsey J

Citations:

[1997] UKEAT 237 – 97 – 2005

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See Also – Blandford v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 30-Apr-1998
. .
Cited – Logicrose Ltd v Southend United Football Club Ltd CA 5-Feb-1988
The agent required the contractual counterparty to pay a bribe of pounds 70,000 to an offshore account.
Held: The bribe was held to be recoverable by the principal whether the principal rescinded or affirmed the contract because it was a . .

Cited by:

See also – Blandford v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 30-Apr-1998
. .
Cited – Arrow Nominees Inc, Blackledge v Blackledge ChD 2-Nov-1999
The applicants sought to strike out a claim under section 459. The two companies sold toiletries, the one as retail agent for the other. They disputed the relationship of the companies, and the use of a trading name. Documents were disclosed which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.207486

Immigration Advisory Services v Oommen: EAT 19 Mar 1997

The claimant had been ordered to pay a deposit as a condition of being allowed to proceed with the claim which the tribunal had judged to have no reasonable prospect of success. The claim was struck out after the tribunal had been wrongly told that the deposits had not been paid. The strike out was revoked on a review. The defendant appealed.
Held: Rule 7(7) of the Industrial Tribunal Rules is to be interpreted in accordance with s.7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 and that the period of 21 days begins with the date of deemed service in the ordinary course of post unless the contrary is proved. The deposit had in fact been paid in time, and the claimant’s cross appeal succeeded.

Judges:

Keene J

Citations:

[1997] UKEAT 234 – 97 – 1903, [1997] ICR 683

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 1993, Interpretation Act 1978 7

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v County of London Quarter Session Appeals Committee ex parte Rossi CA 1956
A bastardy summons had been served on the defendant but he had not been properly served with a written notice indicating the date of an adjourned hearing. He sought an order for certiorari to quash the decision of the court.
Held: Where there . .
Cited – Regina v Home Secretary, Ex parte Yeboah CA 1987
Sir Nicholas Browne-Wilkinson V-C spoke of section 7 of the 1978 Act: ‘If actual receipt is necessary to enable the addressee to take some necessary step, then the word ‘sent’ in the principal Act will be construed to mean ‘received” . .
Cited – Moody v Godstone Rural District Council 1966
The actual date of service of an enforcement notice under the Town and Country Planning Act 1962 was not material because the notice only took effect on the date stated in it, namely 1st July with 28 days from then for compliance. The date of . .
Applied – Derrybaa Ltd v Castro Blanco EAT 1986
The rules required a notice to be sent not less than 14 days before a date fixed for a hearing.
Held: The word ‘send’ in Rule 5 refers to the date when the notice is received or deemed to have been received under the Interpretation Act. In so . .

Cited by:

Wrongly decided – Gdynia American Shipping Lines (London) Ltd v Chelminski CA 8-Jul-2004
The employers had sought to appeal from a decision of the employment tribunal. The EAT had refused it as out of time.
Held: The rules required the appellant to file within 42 days of receiving the decision, the notice of appeal together with a . .
Cited – Sodexho Ltd v Gibbons EAT 14-Jul-2005
EAT Deposit ordered. Order lost in post due to the Claimant putting wrong post-code on ET1. Review. Distinguishing Judgments from Orders. Strike-out. Extending time. . .
Disapproved – Mock v Inland Revenue EAT 1-Mar-1999
In the context of the time for appealing to the EAT under Rule 3(3) EAT Rules 1993, as amended, ‘sent’ referred to the date appearing on the ET ‘decision’.
Morison P said: ‘Industrial Tribunal chairmen are required to produce reasons. When . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.207314

London Borough of Wandsworth v D’Silva and Another: EAT 17 Mar 1997

Citations:

[1997] UKEAT 470 – 96 – 1703

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Wandsworth London Borough Council v D’Silva and Another CA 9-Dec-1997
The council wanted to change its Code of Practice on Staff Sickness. Employees objected. The Council argued that the Code was not part of the employment contract, and that in any event the contract reserved to the council the right to alter the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.207323

A v B and Another: EAT 18 Feb 1997

The respondents appealed against a finding of unlawful sex discrimination. The claimant had been seeking psychotherapy, and the defendant sought discovery of her therapy history.
Held: The notes may have been relevant, and an order should have been made for their disclosure.

Citations:

[1997] UKEAT 220 – 97 – 1802

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993

Citing:

Cited – British Railways Board v Natarajan EAT 1979
Arnold J considered when it was appropriate for the company’s confidential material to be disclosed to employee claimants in tribunal proceedings: ‘We think that before deciding whether an examination is necessary, the judge or chairman of the . .
Applied – Medallion Holidays Ltd v Birch 1985
The Chairman of the Industrial Tribunal had struck out the employers’ Notice of Appearance for failure to comply with an order for particulars. Hld: The employers’ appeal to the EAT was dismissed. The court considered a strike out of an application . .
Cited – Science Research Council v Nasse; BL Cars Ltd (formerly Leyland Cars) v Voias HL 1-Nov-1979
Recent statutes had given redress to anyone suffering unlawful discrimination on account of race sex or trade union activities. An employee sought discovery of documents from his employer which might reveal such discrimination.
Held: The court . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.207172

London Underground Ltd v Edwards: EAT 13 Jan 1997

Judges:

Morison P J

Citations:

[1997] UKEAT 16 – 96 – 1301

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – London Underground Ltd v Edwards EAT 14-Feb-1995
The Tribunal considered the difficulties arising where one party was not represented, but where the case gave rise to difficult questions of law. In this case the claimant alleged sex discrimination in the context of rostering arrangements making . .

Cited by:

At EAT – London Underground Limited v Edwards (2) CA 21-May-1998
New rosters for underground train drivers were indirectly discriminatory because all the men could comply with them but not all the women could do so: it was a ‘striking fact’ that not a single man was disadvantaged despite the overwhelming . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.207126

Graham Group Plc v Garratt: EAT 20 Feb 1997

Whether claim in time – effective date of termination

Judges:

Pugsley HHJ

Citations:

[1997] UKEAT 161 – 97 – 2002

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Adams v GKN Sankey Ltd EAT 1980
The employee had been given twelve weeks notice of redundancy dismissal, and was not required to attend work during the notice period, but then worked additional days. A letter was written in November stating ‘you are given 12 weeks’ notice of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.207207

Broudie and Another v Khan: EAT 15 Jan 1997

Citations:

[1997] UKEAT 1 – 97 – 1501

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Broudie and Another v Khan EAT 20-Apr-1999
. .
See Also – Broudie and Another v Khan EAT 21-Jun-1999
. .
See Also – Broudie and Another v Khan EAT 21-Oct-1999
EAT Sex Discrimination – Direct . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.207083

Compair Holman Ltd v Evans: EAT 17 Jan 1997

Citations:

[1997] UKEAT 832 – 96 – 1701

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

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

Employment

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.207091