Category: Employment

Oderinde v Datapact Ltd: EAT 14 Jan 2002

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Compensation

Judges:

His Hon Judge J R Reid QC

Citations:

EAT/611/00, [2002] UKEAT 0611 – 00 – 1401

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Oderinde v Datapack Ltd EAT 15-Nov-2000
. .
Cited – Charles Letts and Co v Howard EAT 1976
Abusive language between employer and employee may be repudiatory of the contract. However, an apology may lead to the conclusion that the conduct is not repudiatory but this is likely to be only the position where the words were spoken in heat and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.202460

Iforce Ltd v Wood: EAT 3 Jan 2019

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Disability related discrimination
The Claimant was employed by the Respondent to work in its warehouse. She was a disabled person for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 (‘EqA’) by reason of suffering osteoarthritis. It was her perception (supported by her GP) that her symptoms worsened in cold and damp weather. When the Respondent changed its working practices, and asked that the Claimant (and other warehouse workers) be prepared to move between benches, including those situated nearest the loading doors, the Claimant refused because she believed this would require her to work in colder, damper conditions and thus exacerbate her symptoms. The Respondent’s investigations showed this was an erroneous belief – in fact, the temperature and humidity levels were not materially different throughout the warehouse – and the Respondent considered the Claimant’s refusal to obey the instruction was unreasonable and issued her with a final written warning (subsequently downgraded on appeal to a written warning).
The Claimant brought ET proceedings, complaining that this amounted to disability discrimination contrary to section 15 EqA. The ET upheld that claim, finding that, while the Claimant’s belief in the temperature and humidity differences in the warehouse was mistaken, her refusal to accept the Respondent’s instruction was because she believed compliance would adversely impact on her health and that was a condition of osteoarthritis, which was a disability; the essential components of section 15 EqA were thus established. The Respondent appealed.
Held: allowing the appeal and setting aside the ET’s Judgment on the claim under section 15 EqA.
A broad approach was to be adopted when determining whether the ‘something’, that had led to the unfavourable treatment, had arisen in the consequence of the complainant’s disability for the purposes of section 15 EqA. It was an objective test and the requisite connection could arise from a series of links (City of York v Grosset [2018] EWCA Civ 1105 and Sheikholesami v University of Edinburgh [2018] IRLR 1090 EAT applied). That said, there still had to be some connection between the ‘something’ (here the refusal to obey the Respondent’s instruction to work at benches near the loading doors) and the Claimant’s disability (osteoarthritis); the former had to arise in some way as a consequence of the latter. Allowing that the Claimant’s perception that her condition might worsen if she was required to work in colder and damper conditions might arise from her disability, the ET had not found that this was what the Respondent was requiring her to do. The ET had accepted that the evidence showed that, objectively speaking, there was no material difference in the conditions at the different work benches; it had found that the Claimant was mistaken in her belief in this regard and had failed to explain how it had then concluded that this erroneous belief arose in consequence of her disability. This was not simply a failure to provide adequate reasons. Allowing that an ET might find that an employee’s judgment was impaired as a result of (say) stress or pain suffered in consequence of disability, that was not how the Claimant had put her case in these proceedings (either before the ET or on appeal) and it was not an inference that might legitimately be drawn from the ET’s reasoning. The ET’s written reasons revealed no basis for finding a causal connection between the Claimant’s disability and the erroneous belief that had led her to refuse to accept the Respondent’s instruction. In the circumstances, the section 15 claim must fail.

Citations:

[2019] UKEAT 0167 – 18 – 0301

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.635151

Dennison v University College of St Mark and St John: EAT 19 Jul 2006

EAT Equal Pay Act – European law; Article 141
Part-time pensions case. The Appellant was an employee who did not join a voluntary scheme for some eight years after having become eligible to do so. She initially claimed that this was because she had taken out a private pension, but that was rejected on the evidence. The Appellant alleged that the Tribunal had failed to ask the fundamental question whether she would have joined earlier had she been eligible, and contended that there was evidence that she would have done so, notwithstanding her failure to do so later. Instead the Tribunal had simply focused on whether her reason for not joining later was the fact that she had a private pension. The EAT agreed that the Tribunal had not focused on the right question and remitted the case for further consideration. Paragraph 7.2 of Part Time Worker Pension Cases Information Bulletin Number 9 considered.

Judges:

Elias J P

Citations:

[2006] UKEAT 0196 – 06 – 1907, UKEAT/0196/06

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.244047

Dee v Suffolk County Council (Unfair Dismissal – Contributory Fault: EAT 7 Dec 2018

UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Contributory fault
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Polkey deduction
Following a finding that the Claimant had been unfairly dismissed, an Employment Tribunal erred at the Remedy stage in failing to give adequate reasons for the sequential reductions to a compensatory award it made (i) under Polkey and (ii) by way of contributory fault. It also erred in failing to explain why no similar reduction was applied to the basic award, and why no uplift was applied for breaches of the ACAS code identified in the Liability Judgment.

Citations:

[2018] UKEAT 0180 – 18 – 0712

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.635146

M’Intosh v Arden Coal Co Ltd: HL 3 Apr 1924

A miner who was working with two shot-firers in driving a stone mine in a pit retired with them, after two shots had been lit, to a place of safety. One of the shots missed fire, and the miner, in breach of a notice issued by the employers which he had read, and which, after referring to the Explosives in Coal Mines Order of 1st September 1913, provided that if a shot missed fire no person should on any pretext approach the shot-hole before the expiry of the period mentioned in the Order, returned to the shot-hole within the prohibited time and was injured by an explosion.
Held aff. the judgment of the First Division) that the miner was not acting within the sphere of his employment at the time of the accident, and appeal dismissed.

Judges:

Viscount Cave, Viscount Finlay, Lord Dunedin, Lord Shaw, and Lord Sumner

Citations:

[1924] UKHL 478, 61 SLR 478

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Personal Injury, Employment

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.631557

Abram Coal Co v Southern: HL 29 Jun 1903

The word ‘earnings’ in the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1897 is used in a popular sense, and means the sum which a workman gets for his work when he comes to it properly equipped according to the general understanding and practice of his particular trade.
By agreement with a collier, his employer deducted from his weekly wages a sum for the check weigh fund, the sharpening of picks, and the maintenance of lamps, and the supply of oil thereto.
Held that in estimating the compensation due for an injury under the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1897, the workmen’s earnings were his whole wages without any deduction

Judges:

Lords Macnaghten, Shand, and Lindley

Citations:

[1903] UKHL 449, 41 SLR 449

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Damages, Personal Injury, Employment

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.630579

Woodielee Coal and Coke Co, Ltd v Robertson: HL 22 Mar 1920

In a fiery mine, a miner, at the customary knock-off in the middle of the shift, struck a match to light a pipe. An explosion occurred and he received injuries from which he died. It was, as he knew, an offence under the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1911 to light or to be in possession of a match. Held that the miner’s injuries were not ‘arising out of’ the employment but out of an added peril, and consequently that his dependants could not recover compensation.

Judges:

Viscount Finlay, Viscount Cave, and Lords Dunedin, Atkinson, and Moulton

Citations:

[1920] UKHL 343, 57 SLR 343

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Personal Injury, Employment

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.631516

Clawley v Carlton Main Colliery Co Ltd: HL 15 Jul 1918

The question was whether the master is entitled under the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906 (Sched. 1, sec. 17), to redeem by payment of a sum down a weekly payment which has been made for six months but which does not represent the full compensation due to the servant under the Act.
Held that the payment contemplated by section 17 is one which exhausts the master’s liability, therefore the section was inapplicable to the case.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Finlay), Viscount Haldane, Lords Sumner and Wrenbury

Citations:

[1918] UKHL 392, 56 SLR 392

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.631481

Connell v James Nimmo and Co Ltd: HL 21 Mar 1924

Held (aff. the judgment of the First Division, Lords Phillimore and Blanesburgh diss.) that an accumulation of inflammable gas in the workings of a ‘gassy’ mine, which the ventilating system had failed to dilute and render harmless, and which had not been detected owing to the negligence of the person entrusted by his employer with the duty of seeing that the works and ways were in a proper condition, constituted a defect in the condition of the ways and works of the mine within the meaning of section 1, sub-section (1) of the Employers’ Liability Act 1880.

Judges:

Lord Dunedin, Lord Atkinson, Lord Shaw, Lord Phillimore, and Lord Blanesburgh

Citations:

[1924] UKHL 467, 61 SLR 467

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Employment, Personal Injury

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.631553

Gbokoyi v Bennett’s Eco-Inverter (Environmental Services) Ltd: EAT 18 Jan 2002

The claimant appealed against dismissal of her unfair dismissal and of her maternity related discrimination claim.
Held: The appeal succeeded: ‘it does not appear that the tribunal gave any separate consideration to whether the pregnancy was an effective cause of the adverse treatment of Mrs Gbokoyi and, insofar as it relied on the reasons which it had set out for rejecting the unfair dismissal claim, those reasons were flawed.’

Judges:

Mr Recorder Burke QC

Citations:

[2002] UKEAT 1282 – 00 – 1801, EAT/1282/00

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Leave – Gbokoyi v Bennette’s Eco-Inverter (Environmental Services) Ltd EAT 22-Mar-2001
Preliminary hearing – leave to appeal granted . .
Cited – King v Great Britain China Centre CA 1991
The court considered the nature of evidence which will be available to tribunals considering a race discrimination claim.
Held: A complainant must prove his or her case on the balance of probabilities, but it is unusual to find direct evidence . .
Cited – Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd (No 2) HL 20-Oct-1995
The applicant complained that she was dismissed when her employers learned that she was pregnant.
Held: 1(1) (a) and 5(3) of the 1975 Act were to be interpreted as meaning that where a woman had been engaged for an indefinite period, the fact . .
Cited – O’Neill v Symm and Co Ltd EAT 10-Jun-1998
An employer dismissing an employee for sickness absences, and who was unaware that the sickness had come to be a disability, did not discriminate under the Act. The reason for the dismissal was to be looked for in the mind of the employer. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.202426

Gee v Shell UK Ltd: EAT 14 Jan 2002

EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal. The claimant appealed saying that she had abandoned her claim after unfair pressure from the tribunal chairman.
Held: The chairman had given the clear impression that she might lose and be subject to an adverse costs order, when in fact no such risk was imminent. The appeal succeeded, and the matter was remitted to a differently constituted Employment tribunal.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Maurice Kay

Citations:

[2002] UKEAT 484 – 00 – 1401, EAT/484/00

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Citing:

See Also – Gee v Shell UK Ltd EAT 10-Nov-2000
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.202427

Bryant v The Housing Corporation: EAT 20 Jan 1997

Judges:

Morison J P

Citations:

[1997] UKEAT 780 – 96 – 2001

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Bryant v Housing Corporation CA 21-May-1998
A complainant before an industrial tribunal will only be allowed to amend her statement in order to add an allegation of victimisation for sex discrimination where this arises naturally from the facts alleged. In this case the new claim was rather . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.207084

Fearon v Chief Constable of Derbyshire: EAT 16 Jan 2004

EAT ‘This case concerns the correct test to be applied when an allegation of victimisation is made under the Race Relations Act; and the correct approach to handling a series of allegations of race discrimination said to constitute a single regime of discrimination.’

Citations:

UKEAT/445/02, [2004] UKEAT 0445 – 02 – 1601

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Owusu v London Fire and Civil Defence Authority EAT 1-Mar-1995
The employee complained of his employer’s repeated failure to regrade him, and alleged discrimination. The employer said his claim was out of time.
Held: Mummery J made the distinction between single acts of discrimination, and continuing . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.202421

Caredda v London Goodenough Trust for Overseas Graduates: EAT 16 Jan 2002

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Procedural fairness/automatically unfair dismissal.

Judges:

His Honour Judge D Pugsley

Citations:

[2002] UKEAT 0843 – 00 – 1601, EAT/0843/00

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Caredda v London Goodenough Trust for Overseas Graduates EAT 30-Oct-2000
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Procedural fairness/automatically unfair dismissal. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.202411

Dhedhi v United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust: EAT 22 Jan 2002

The Employment Tribunal had decided that a Polkey discount was to be made. At a subsequent remedies and review hearing, the Tribunal allowed the appellant to re-open that issue and having heard evidence, the Tribunal altered the percentage Polkey discount in favour of the appellant.
Held: There was no suggestion in the original decision that either representative had any difficulty dealing with the issue of the Polkey discount. It was clear from the detailed reasons that the Tribunal had fully explored all the facts of the case relevant to the Polkey discount.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Ansell

Citations:

[2002] UKEAT 1303 – 01 – 2201

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

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 . .
Cited – Council of The City of Newcastle Upon Tyne v Marsden (Rev 1) EAT 23-Jan-2010
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Review
Claim under Disability Discrimination Act 1995 dismissed at PHR because Claimant not available to give evidence as to long-term effect of injury – Judge willing to offer . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.202417

Bridgend Borough Council v Sutton: EAT 22 Jan 2002

Citations:

[2002] UKEAT 1023 – 01 – 2201

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

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.202407

A v B: EAT 23 Jan 2002

The claimant appealed against the decision of the tribunal on the basis that in its remarks it had shown bias. The tribunal had read the papers which would stand as evidence in chief, and then expressed a view, and given a costs warning. The appellant argued that they had gone over the line.
Held: Langstaff QC said: ‘taken at the highest, the remarks were a strong indication of the way the Tribunal’s mind was moving. But we note that repeatedly there are indications that the Tribunal’s mind was not closed, in the sense of finally made up, and we do not think that any court could see the line drawn in such position.’ No concluded view had been expressed. The appeal was dismissed.

Judges:

Langstaff QC

Citations:

[2002] UKEAT 0763 – 01 – 2301

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Harada Ltd v Turner CA 6-Apr-2001
The claimant had sought damages alleging unfair dismissal and unlawful deductions from his wages. The defendant argued that it was not subject to the jurisdiction of the court. During preliminary discussions, the judge hearing the application was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.202386

Butcher v Salvage Association: EAT 21 Jan 2002

Citations:

[2002] UKEAT 988 – 01 – 2101

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Butcher v Salvage Association CA 31-May-2002
. .
See Also – Butcher v The Salvage Association EAT 20-Dec-2002
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Contributory fault . .
See Also – Butcher v The Salvage Association EAT 2-Jul-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.202410

Stolt Offshore Ltd v Miklaszewicz: SCS 21 Dec 2001

In a protected disclosure case, time runs from the occurrence of the alleged detriment and not from the alleged disclosure.
Lord Nimmo Smith said: ‘It would appear to us to be consistent with the main purpose of the 1998 Act to approach the matter in this way, as to construe it in the manner suggested by Counsel for the appellants would be to deprive employees . . of an important protection which it was thought appropriate to confer on ‘whistle blowers’ in the public interest’

Judges:

Lord Marnoch and Lord Nimmo Smith and Lord Weir

Citations:

[2001] ScotCS 303, 2002 SLT 103, 2002 SCLR 455, 2002 SC 232, [2002] IRLR 344, 2002 GWD 1-42

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996, Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Appeal from – Miklaszewicz v Stolt Offshore Ltd EAT 25-Apr-2001
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Canavan v St Edmund Campion Catholic School EAT 13-Feb-2015
canavanSECCSEAT201502
EAT Victimisation Discrimination: Detriment – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Amendment
By this appeal the Claimant attacked a lengthy and detailed decision of the Tribunal at a Pre-Hearing Review at which the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.202267

Clarke v Mediguard Services Ltd: CANI 25 Feb 2000

Appeal by way of case stated against the decision of an industrial tribunal dated 9 August 1999, whereby it dismissed the appellant’s claim against the respondent for compensation for sex discrimination and/or victimisation. The net issue in the appeal is whether an employee who has brought a complaint of such treatment against her employer is entitled to pursue it against him when she has come to a settlement with the transferee employer who has succeeded to his liabilities in consequence of a transfer to which the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 apply.

Citations:

[2000] NICA 2

Links:

Bailii

Northern Ireland

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.201919

Logan-Salton v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council: CA 6 Dec 2001

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1940

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Logan-Salton v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council EAT 16-Jan-2001
. .
Appeal from – Logan-Salton v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council EAT 26-Jun-2001
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.201559

Fadipe v Reed Nursing Personell: CA 4 Dec 2001

Failure to give proper reference. ECJ judgment giving right to make complaint only if cause was result of complaint over health and safety matters.
Held: The appeal failed. The section did not protect former workers: ‘section 44 does not, on its proper construction, apply in the circumstances relied upon by Mr Fadipe. The section is in the part of the Act that affords protection from suffering detriment in employment. Its purpose is to protect employees while they are still employed from suffering detriment, short of dismissal, by reason of having brought to their employer’s attention health and safety matters of the kind referred to in section 44(1)(c). If it is a dismissal case the section does not apply: see section 44(4). ‘ Nor was it possible now to raise issues not pleaded before the tribunal.

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1885, [2005] ICR 1760

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Directive on the introduction of measures to encourage improvement in the safety and health of workers at work, 89/391/EEC, Employment Rights Act 1996 44

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See also – Fadipe v Reed Nursing Personnel CA 19-Feb-2001
Failure to give proper reference for former employee. . .
Cited – Coote v Granada Hospitality Ltd ECJ 22-Sep-1998
coote_granadaECJ1998
The employer had refused to provide a reference after the claimant had left the company after making a sex discrimination claim. She said this was victimisation.
Held: The state has a duty to protect workers against retaliation after . .
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 by:

Cited – Woodward v Abbey National Plc CA 22-Jun-2006
The claimant appealed refusal to award damages after an alleged failure to give a proper reference, saying that the decision in Fadipe could not stand with the later decision in Rhys-Harper. She said that she had suffered victimisation after making . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.201554

Sajid v Sussex Muslim Society: CA 2 Oct 2001

The defendant appealed against the strike out of parts of its defence. The claimant was employed as the mosque director and imam. He had brought an action in the Industrial Tribunal alleging wrongful dismissal, but notifying the defendants that any excess above what the tribunal could order would be sought in the current action. That action had been withdrawn on commencement of the High Court proceedings. The defence had been that this was an abuse of process.
Held: The judge was correct. The case of Barber was to be distinguished because in the case the claimant had expressly reserved the roght to commence these proceedings: ‘The underlying policy of cause of action estoppel and related doctrines, which are usually classified under the heading res judicata, is that of finality in litigation and the avoidance of the multiplicity of proceedings. Save in special circumstances, it is contrary to public policy and may be an abuse of the process of the court to attempt to re-open in new proceedings a case which has already been litigated and finally determined by a court or tribunal in proceedings between the same parties or issues which could have been litigated properly between the parties in relation to the subject matter of the earlier litigation. This doctrine embodies, in my view, a principle of justice, not just policy. In the absence of special circumstances it is unjust for a party who spent time and money in obtaining a final determination of a claim or an issue in a claim to be faced with fresh proceedings from the other party seeking to re-litigate the same cause of action or the same issue.’

Judges:

Mummery, Laws LJJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1684, [2002] IRLR 113

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 98(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Distinguished – Barber v Staffordshire County Council CA 29-Jan-1996
A dismissal of a claim without consideration by the tribunal created an issue estoppel. Issue estoppel rules apply equally to Industrial Tribunal decisions as elsewhere. Redundancy claim once withdrawn on one ground could not be revived on another. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Singh v The Members of The Management Committe of The Bristol Sikh Temple and Others EAT 14-Feb-2012
EAT WORKING TIME REGULATIONS – Worker
NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE ACT – Worker
The issue was whether the Priest at a Sikh Temple was a ‘worker’ within section 54(3)(b) of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Contract

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.201434

Yeboah v Crofton: CA 31 Jul 2001

Application for leave to appeal.

Judges:

Pill, Rimer LJJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1309

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Crofton v Yeboah and Another EAT 8-Jul-1999
Application to amend notice of appeal. . .
See Also – Crofton v Yeboah EAT 16-May-2001
After a very long hearing, the appellant had been found guilty of race discrimination in his making of allegations about the behaviour of the respondent in failing to investigate corruption within Hackney London Borough Council.
Held: The . .
See Also – Crofton v Yeboah and Another EAT 6-Mar-2000
. .
See Also – Yeboah v Crofton CA 31-May-2002
The industrial tribunal had made a finding of direct race discrimination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal found the decision perverse, and ordered a rehearing. The applicant appealed that order.
Held: The EAT must be careful not to take . .
See Also – Crofton v Yeboah EAT 12-Sep-2002
EAT Race Discrimination – Injury to feelings . .

Cited by:

See Also – Yeboah v Crofton CA 31-May-2002
The industrial tribunal had made a finding of direct race discrimination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal found the decision perverse, and ordered a rehearing. The applicant appealed that order.
Held: The EAT must be careful not to take . .
See Also – Crofton v Yeboah EAT 26-Jul-2002
. .
See Also – Crofton v Yeboah EAT 12-Sep-2002
EAT Race Discrimination – Injury to feelings . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.201309

Halliday v Archdiocese of Southwark: CA 10 Jul 2001

Application for permission to appeal – appeal to EAT rejected as attempt to re-argue facts.

Judges:

Mummery LJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1181

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Halliday v Archdiocese of Southwark EAT 5-Mar-2001
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Procedural Fairness . .

Cited by:

See Also – Halliday v Archdiocese of Southwark EAT 5-Mar-2001
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Procedural Fairness . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.201247

Wheeler and Another v Durham County Council: CA 23 May 2001

Judges:

Lord Philips MR, Pill, Arden LJJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 844

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At EAT (1) – Wheeler and Another v Durham County Council EAT 17-Feb-2000
. .
Appeal from – Wheeler and Another v Durham County Council EAT 30-Nov-2000
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.201099

D’Sa v University Hospital Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust: CA 18 Jun 2001

An inquiry panel had concluded that the surgeon had been guilty of professional misconduct, but had recommended that the appropriate disciplinary sanction was that the surgeon should be warned about his behaviour. The court was now asked whether at a subsequent disciplinary hearing it was open to the NHS Trust which employed the surgeon to consider whether the matters of professional misconduct which the inquiry panel had investigated had given rise to a breakdown of trust and confidence.
Held: The NHS Trust could not consider that issue.

Judges:

Simon Brown VP, May, Dyson LJJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 983, [2001] Lloyd’s Rep Med 442, (2001) 62 BMLR 39, [2001] IRLR 691

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, Health Professions

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.201122

Boardman v Copeland Borough Council: CA 13 Jun 2001

The claimant had ‘neither pleaded nor shown any damage to him during the course of his employment which resulted from his employer’s conduct. The only damage which is demonstrated is that which followed from his dismissal and, arguably, the manner of his dismissal. That damage if it exists has been held in Johnson to be irrecoverable in a Common Law action’.

Judges:

Schiemann LJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 888

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Johnson v Unisys Ltd HL 23-Mar-2001
The claimant contended for a common law remedy covering the same ground as the statutory right available to him under the Employment Rights Act 1996 through the Employment Tribunal system.
Held: The statutory system for compensation for unfair . .

Cited by:

Cited – Dunnachie v Kingston Upon Hull City Council; Williams v Southampton Institute; Dawson v Stonham Housing Association EAT 8-Apr-2003
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Compensation
In each case, The employee sought additional damages for non-economic loss after an unfair dismissal.
Held: The Act could be compared with the Discrimination Acts . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Damages

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.201114

Whitelock and Storr and Others v Khan: EAT 26 Oct 2010

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason
Tribunal failed to apply guidance in Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd [2008] IRLR 530 in failing to consider employer’s reason for dismissal namely misconduct before considering employee’s allegation of protected disclosure dismissal.

Judges:

Ansell J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0017 – 10 – 2610

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd CA 17-Apr-2008
The claimant had argued that she had been unfairly dismissed since her dismissal was founded in her making a protected disclosure. The ET had not accepted either her explanation or that of the employer.
Held: The employee’s appeal failed, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.425581

Jack v Pinkerton Security Services Ltd: CA 3 May 2001

Application for leave to appeal – refused.

Judges:

Keene LJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 697

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Jack v Pinkerton Security Services Ltd EAT 23-Jun-2000
. .
Appeal from – William Jack v Pinkerton Security Services Ltd EAT 7-Dec-2000
EAT Race Discrimination – Direct . .
Cited – Owusu v London Fire and Civil Defence Authority EAT 1-Mar-1995
The employee complained of his employer’s repeated failure to regrade him, and alleged discrimination. The employer said his claim was out of time.
Held: Mummery J made the distinction between single acts of discrimination, and continuing . .

Cited by:

See Also – Jack v Pinkerton Security Services Ltd EAT 16-Apr-2002
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.201058

Riniker v University College London (Practice Note): CA 5 Apr 2001

The Employment Appeal Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal which does not set out to disturb any part of the order made by the original tribunal. There is no inherent power in the Court of Appeal to bypass the prohibition in subsection of the 1999 Act against hearing an appeal from a refusal of permission.

Citations:

[2001] 1 WLR 13

Statutes:

Access to Justice Act 1999 54(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See also – Riniker v University College London EAT 5-Feb-1997
. .
See also – Riniker v University College London EAT 12-Dec-1995
. .
See also – Regina v Lord Chancellor and others ex parte Riniker CA 28-Feb-1997
The applicant sought judicial review of a refusal of her request that a judgment of the Court of Appeal should not be published.
Held: The applicants complaints were not well founded. ‘Her attempt to restrain publication of the Court of Appeal . .
Appeal from – Riniker v University College London EAT 23-Aug-1999
EAT Contract of Employment – Breach of Contract
EAT Contract of Employment – Breach of Contract. . .
See also – Riniker v University College London CA 25-Nov-1998
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Jolly v Jay and Another CA 7-Mar-2002
The applicant sought to appeal a refusal to grant him permission to renew an oral application for leave to appeal. The respondent had appeared at the initial unsuccessful application, and had been awarded costs although there appeared to be no . .
Cited – The Law Society v Kamlesh Bahl EAT 7-Jul-2003
EAT Sex Discrimination – Direct
The complainant had been suspended from her position as Vice President of the Law Society. The Society and its officers appealed findings of sex and race discrimination . .
Cited – Baker v Rowe CA 6-Nov-2009
H and W, though very elderly, set out for a divorce. A former son-in-law now appealed against a costs order made against him as an intervener under the 1996 Act. The parties disputed his right to appeal without permission.
Held: Under the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.201000