Category: Employment

J P Jenkins v Kingsgate (Clothing Productions) Ltd: EAT 19 Jun 1981

The claimant worked part time. She said that she should have been paid at the same rate as her male full time equivalents, the failure being incompatible with her rights under Article 119.
Held: The scope of Article 119 EEC covers not only direct but also indirect discrimination. The difference between part-time and full-time work is by itself ‘a material difference’ for the purposes of Section 1(3). The decision of the European Court of Justice clearly establishes that a differential in pay cannot be justified simply by showing that the women are part-time workers, and, where the circumstances are such that part-time workers are wholly or mainly women, an employer cannot justify paying less for like work to a part-time woman than to a full-time man by simply relying on the fact that the woman is a part-time employee.

Judges:

Browne-Wilkinson J P

Citations:

[1981] 1 WLR 1485, [1981] ICR 715, [1981] UKEAT 145 – 79 – 1906, [1981] 2 CMLR 24, [1981] IRLR 228, [1981] ECR 911

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Equal Pay Act 1970, EEC Treaty 119

Citing:

Cited – J P Jenkins v Kingsgate (Clothing Productions) Ltd ECJ 31-Mar-1981
ECJ The fact that work paid at time rates is remunerated at an hourly rate which varies according to the number of hours worked per week does not offend against the principle of equal pay laid down in article 119 . .

Cited by:

Mentioned – Pickstone v Freemans Plc HL 30-Jun-1988
The claimant sought equal pay with other, male, warehouse operatives who were doing work of equal value but for more money. The Court of Appeal had held that since other men were also employed on the same terms both as to pay and work, her claim . .
Cited – E, Regina (on The Application of) v Governing Body of JFS and Another SC 16-Dec-2009
E complained that his exclusion from admission to the school had been racially discriminatory. The school applied an Orthodox Jewish religious test which did not count him as Jewish because of his family history.
Held: The school’s appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination, European

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.200625

Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc: CA 29 Jan 2001

Renewed application for permission to appeal.

Judges:

Mummery LJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 74

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc EAT 9-Jul-1997
. .
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
. .

Cited by:

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: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.200717

Madden v Preferred Technical Group CHA Limited, Guest: CA 27 Aug 2004

The claimant had made a complaint of race discrimination. The complaint was dismissed. Some time later the company dismissed him, and he again lodged a complaint. The tribunal found him unfairly dismissed, but again not discriminated against.
Held: The Tribunal had been wrong to ignore any motive for the action taken. When it found no discrimination, it was obliged to give reasons for that finding. It had done so. Whilst the claimant had been treated less favourably than others, it appeared not to have arisen from his race. ‘Tribunals are not required to draw inferences. They may do so. If they either think that that there is no evidence from which inferences can properly drawn, or if they think the evidence does not warrant the drawing of inferences, they should say so.’ The reason here was the reason was a long standing personality clash between himself and another worker.
Wall LJ said: ‘I do not accept the argument that the hypothetical comparator in a case under RRA 1976 must be, in effect, a clone of the applicant in every respect (including personality and personal characteristics) except that he or she is a different race. Nothing that I read in the speeches in Shamoon leads me to that conclusion, nor does the statute.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Ward The Right Honourable Lord Justice Hooper Lord Justice Wall

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1178, [2005] IRLR 46

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Race Relations Act 1976 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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 – Deman v Association of University Teachers CA 14-Mar-2003
The appellant challenged dismissal of his claim for race discrimination. In the midst of a dispute with the employer University. He was dissatisfied with the support given by his union. He was refused legal assistance save through a firm of lawyers . .
Cited – Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary HL 27-Feb-2003
The applicant was a chief inspector of police. She had been prevented from carrying out appraisals of other senior staff, and complained of sex discrimination.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. The tribunal had taken a two stage approach. It . .
Cited – Swiggs and others v Nagarajan HL 15-Jul-1999
Bias may not be intentional
The applicant claimed that he had been denied appointment to a job with London Regional Transport because he had brought a number of previous race discrimination claims against it or associated companies. An industrial tribunal had upheld his claim . .
Cited – Strathclyde Regional Council v Zafar; Zafar v Glasgow City Council HL 16-Oct-1997
The absence of any other explanation for the unfair dismissal of a black worker, does not of itself and inescapably lead to finding of race bias, or racial discrimination. He had been dismissed following complaints of sexual harassment, later found . .
See Also – Madden v Preferred Technical Group-Cha Ltd and Another EAT 14-Feb-2000
. .
See Also – Madden v Preferred Technical Group – Cha Limited, Michael Guest EAT 21-Jan-2001
EAT Race Discrimination – Victimisation
EAT Race Discrimination – Victimisation. . .
See Also – Madden v Preferred Technical Group – CHA Limited, Guest EAT 22-Jan-2001
EAT Race Discrimination – Direct
EAT Race Discrimination – Direct . .
Appeal from – Madden v Preferred Technical Group- Cha Ltd M Guest EAT 1-Dec-2003
EAT Race Discrimination – Victimisation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.200654

Eildon Ltd v Sharkey: EAT 28 Jul 2004

EAT Practice and Procedure – Employment Tribunal made adverse findings against Respondent when the point had not been put to its 3 witnesses in XX. Remit to new Employment Tribunal.

Judges:

McMullen QC J

Citations:

[2004] UKEAT 0109 – 03 – 2807, EATS/0109/03

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 99

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

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: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.200573

Wilson v Southern Counties Fuels Ltd: EAT 12 Jul 2004

EAT Disability Discrimination – Less favourable treatment. – Dismissal of claim for disability discrimination on basis that Applicant not disabled.(i) No perversity and proper application of Morgan in finding that the mental impairment was not a clinically well-recognised illness.
(ii) It is inappropriate to give a rolled-up answer to the 3 questions of (a) effect on day to day activities (b) substantial (c) long term. But in the light of finding on (i) appeal fell to be dismissed.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Burton

Citations:

[2004] UKEAT 0032 – 04 – 1207, UKEAT/0032/04

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.200575

Orthet Ltd v Vince-Cain: EAT 12 Aug 2004

EAT Sex discrimination: compensation – An award of compensation for injury to feelings, pursuant to a finding of unlawful discrimination on the grounds of gender or victimisation is to be made without reference to taxation. The Tribunal correctly decided this matter.
Where an employee had, in mitigation of her losses, undertaken an education course, it was a question of fact for the Tribunal to decide whether or not such step was reasonable. The Respondent’s appeal against this Decision was dismissed.
The calculation of loss of pension should be based upon the guidelines to Employment Tribunal Chairmen and, where such pension loss is claimed to extend beyond two years, the substantial loss formula rather than the ‘simplified approach’ should be adopted. Remitted for written submissions to the Employment Tribunal.

Judges:

McMullen QC HHJ

Citations:

[2004] UKEAT 0801 – 03 – 1208, UKEAT/0801/03(2), [2004] IRLR 857, [2005] ICR 374

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Vince-Cain v Orthet Ltd EAT 5-Mar-2004
Unfair Dismissal – Reason for dismissal – Refusal of an application by an employer to argue that it is wrong in law under SDA 1975 section 65 to gross up an award for compensation when its own submission to the opposite effect had been accepted by . .

Cited by:

Cited – Timothy James Consulting Ltd v Wilton EAT 5-Mar-2015
EAT Harassment – SEX DISCRIMINATION – Injury to feelings
SEX DISCRIMINATION – Other losses
The Claimant resigned from the Respondent company and was found by the Employment Tribunal to have been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination, Damages

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.200577

Morita and Others v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 27 Mar 2019

Applications for permission to apply for judicial review in relation to two linked claims, that came before me at a ‘rolled-up’ hearing to consider permission and, if permission is granted, the substantive claim for judicial review. Each applicant has been detained under immigration legislation and held in an immigration removal centre in England, where he undertook paid activities for which he was paid pounds 1 per hour under the current regime applicable to such activities.
The purpose of each application is to challenge by way of judicial review the decision of the respondent, the Secretary of State for the Home Department (‘the Secretary of State’) not to increase the rate paid for paid activities undertaken by detained persons in removal centres and not to modify the payment regime to provide more flexibility (‘the 2018 Decision’).

Judges:

Justice Murray

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 758 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Immigration

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.635261

First Greater Western Ltd and Another v Waiyego: EAT 6 Dec 2018

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Compensation
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Loss/mitigation
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Burden of proof
The Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 can apply to some discrimination claims, but reduction of an award for contributory negligence would rarely, if ever, be justified because of the difficulties in applying the concept of ‘fault’ to the victim of a discrimination claim and the fact that the discriminator may have acted without ‘fault’ in the sense of the 1945 Act.
The obiter dictum in Way v Crouch [2005] ICR 1362, EAT at [11] that ‘compensation in a sex discrimination case (and by analogy in other discrimination claims) is subject to the [1945] Act’ is too broad. The essence of the right not to be discriminated against could be impaired by over-wide application of the 1945 Act. A contributory negligence argument in a discrimination claim may be more appropriately treated as an allegation of failure to mitigate loss.
The tribunal had not erred in its assessment of the quantum of non-financial loss (psychiatric injury and injury to feelings) for disability discrimination. The awards for injury to feelings and psychiatric damage were not flawed by misdirection in relation to causation of loss; nor were they perversely high or flawed by double counting.
The tribunal had rightly rejected the Claimant’s invitation to impose a financial penalty on the First Respondent under section 12A(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for deliberate and repeated breaches of employment law.
The tribunal had also rightly rejected the invitation of the Claimant to award aggravated damages. The Appeal Tribunal shared the lack of enthusiasm for such awards expressed by the Appeal Tribunal in Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis v Shaw [2012] ICR 464.

Citations:

[2018] UKEAT 0056 – 18 – 0612

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination, Damages

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.635147

Linsley v HM Revenue and Customs: EAT 7 Dec 2018

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Reasonable adjustments
The Tribunal erred in its approach to the Respondent’s policy on parking, which was clearly a relevant factor to be taken into account in determining the claim on reasonable adjustments. The Tribunal also erred in its assessment of the reasonableness of the adjustment in question in that it failed to focus on the particular disadvantage suffered by the Claimant, namely the stress of having to look for a parking place.
The case would be remitted to the Tribunal to reconsider the reasonable adjustment issue.

Citations:

[2018] UKEAT 0150 – 18 – 0712

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.635148

Keates v Lewis Merthyr Consolidated Collieries Ltd: HL 17 Jul 1911

An employer company claimed damages for breach of contract against a workman in a summary court. Certain wages were due by the company to the workman which were not yet payable, and which he did not claim in the proceedings. The magistrate set off the damages against the wages and made a corresponding award.
Held, upon a construction of the statute, that the magistrate had jurisdiction to adjust and set off the workman’s claim for wages notwithstanding that the workman had lodged no claim to them.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lords Atkinson, Shaw, and Robson

Citations:

[1911] UKHL 661, 49 SLR 661

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.619211

Morrison v Aberdein Considine and Company: EAT 18 Jul 2018

Jurisdictional Points – Worker/ Employee or Neither
The claimant, a solicitor, had for many years been a ‘salaried partner’ in the respondent law firm. She raised a number of claims, some of which required her to have been an employee of the firm in order for the Tribunal to have jurisdiction to deal with them. The Tribunal determined after a hearing that she was not an employee, but was a partner. On an appeal by the claimant in which she contended that the Tribunal had erred in approach, held ;- (i) That as the term salaried partner had no meaning in law, the facts and circumstances had to be examined carefully in order to assess the nature of the parties’ relationship and the true agreement between them (ii) that while there was no rule requiring the Tribunal to address the terms of the partnership agreement first (Williamson and Soden v Briars UKEAT/0611/10/DM, [2011] UKEAT 0611 – 10 – 2005), it was permissible to do so and logical in the circumstances of the present case and (iii) that it was not erroneous for the Tribunal to take the partnership agreement as a starting point and then assess all of the adminicles of evidence consistent and inconsistent with the claimant’s position that she was an employee not a partner before reaching a conclusion. Both the approach taken and the conclusion reached were accordingly permissible.
Appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2018] UKEAT 0018 – 17 – 2908

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.625446

Isabel Elbal Moreno v Instituto Nacional De La Seguridad Social (Inss): ECJ 22 Nov 2012

ECJ Article 157 TFEU – Directive 79/7/EEC – Directive 97/81/EC – Framework Agreement on part-time work – Directive 2006/54/EC – Contributory retirement pension – Equal treatment for male and female workers – Indirect discrimination on grounds of sex

Judges:

C Toader

Citations:

C-385/11, [2012] EUECJ C-385/11

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 97/81/EC, Directive 79/7/EEC

Jurisdiction:

European

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.465995

Alfa Laval Tumba Ab and Another v Separator Spares International Ltd and Others: CA 29 Nov 2012

Judges:

Sir Andrew Morritt Ch, Longmore, Davis LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 1569, [2013] 2 All ER (Comm) 177, [2013] FSR 22, [2012] WLR(D) 263, [2013] ICR 455, [2013] 2 All ER 463, [2013] 1 WLR 1110, [2013] ILPr 10, [2013] CP Rep 9

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other, Employment, European

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.466405

Regina (National Union of Journalists) v Central Arbitration Committee and Another: CA 21 Jul 2005

The Union complained that the company had rejected its application for bargaining rights. The company replied that an agreement was in place, but the Union said that that agreement was ineffective.
Held: There was nothing to prevent a company recognising a union which might have only minimal support within the company. Recognition of a union by a company was voluntary. An agreement was ‘in force’ even though it might prove very effective. Human rights law had not gone so far as to recognise a human right for a trades union to be recognised.

Judges:

Buxton, Latham LJJ, Sir Martin Nourse

Citations:

Times 29-Jul-2005

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina (National Union of Journalists) v Central Arbitration Committee Admn 19-Nov-2004
The NUJ appealed refusal of collective negotiating rights with the Daily Mirror, having a majority of the members in the sports division. The paper had previously given exclusive rights to a competing union. At the time of the hearing the competing . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Human Rights

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.229681

Wheeler v Qualitydeep Ltd. (T/A Thai Royale Restaurant): CA 30 Jul 2004

The employee, a foreign national with only limited command of English, claimed unfair dismissal. It was responded on behalf of her former employers, now in liquidation, that there could be no unfair dismissal since there had been no deductions of National Insurance and Income Tax, and that therefore the contract was illegal.
Held: The factual findings were unclear. It had been the employment tribunal which had of its own motion raised the argument that the contract was illegal. The EAT had applied the wrong test. The decision was incorrect, but might have been different had the applicant a greater understanding of English law and practice.

Judges:

The Right Honourable Lord Justice Ward, The Right Honourable Lord Justice Wall and The Right Honourable Lord Justice Hooper

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1085, Times 30-Aug-2004

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Wheeler v Qualitydeep Ltd T/A Thai Royale Restaurant (In Liquidation) EAT 2-Mar-2004
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Compensation – Unfair Dismissal – Acquiescence / knowledge of illegality of contract prevented a claim for unfair dismissal. . .
Cited – Hall v Woolston Hall Leisure Limited CA 23-May-2000
The fact that an employment contract was tainted with illegality of which the employee was aware, did not deprive the employee of the possibility of claiming rights which were due to her under a statute which created rights associated with but not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.200536

Hyde v Lehman Brothers Ltd: EAT 4 Aug 2004

Judges:

Cox J

Citations:

[2004] UKEAT 0121 – 04 – 0408

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See also – Hyde v Lehman Brothers Limited EAT 22-Mar-2004
EAT Unlawful Deduction from Wages
EAT Unlawful Deduction from Wages – (no sub-topic). . .

Cited by:

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

Employment

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.200405

Goyal v Fife Health Board and Another: EAT 27 Apr 2004

EAT 1. Employment Tribunal Chairmen should always number the paragraphs of their decisions and use consecutive paragraph numbering in doing so (and with as few subparagraphs as possible, but if using such should continue the main paragraph number e.g. 12.1, 12.2 etc).
2. Employment Tribunal failed to comply with Zafar and Bahl in finding direct (while rejecting indirect) race discrimination and without setting out and rejecting non-discriminatory justifications: remitted to fresh tribunal: Applicant’s cross-appeal on quantum dismissed.

Judges:

Burton J P

Citations:

[2004] UKEAT 0083 – 03 – 2704

Links:

Bailii

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.200018

Kahn v The University of Warwick Professor Paliwala, Professor Mcconville: EAT 20 Jul 2004

EAT Sex Discrimination and Disability Discrimination – Victimisation
The ET gave no weight to relevant admissible probative evidence because of a misapprehension of the circumstances of its being adduced. Its Decision is set aside and remitted to a fresh tribunal as a fair trial was not held. The ET also failed to apply correctly the principles in Morse relating to the duty to make reasonable adjustments. Its finding of bad faith, though not an issue at the hearing, did not vitiate its rejection of the victimisation claims. Its award of costs of andpound;10,000 fell with the substantive decision.

Judges:

His Honour Judge McMullen QC

Citations:

UKEAT/1223/02 – 2007, [2004] UKEAT 1223 – 02 – 2007

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Cited by:

See Also – Kahn v University of Warwick and others EAT 20-Jul-2004
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199910

Brumfitt v Ministry of Defence, Fitzpatrick: EAT 10 Jun 2004

EAT Sex Discrimination
A complaint of direct sex discrimination on the grounds of sexual harassment brought by a woman requires a male comparator, either actual or hypothetical. Furthermore, see decision of House of Lords in MacDonald v Advocate General for Scotland and Pearce v Governing Body of Mayfield Secondary School do not conflict with European law.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Birtles

Citations:

[2004] UKEAT 1004 – 03 – 2707, UKEAT/1004/03

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199895

Murray v Leisureplay Plc: QBD 5 Aug 2004

The claimant sought payment of three years’ salary after termination of his service contract. He said that an agreement had been made by the company to purchase a ‘financial institution’, which would trigger the additional payments. The defendants said that the clause requiring the payment was a penalty, and also sought damages under the 1985 Act on the basis that the agreement required approval of the company in general meeting.
Held: The term ‘financial institution’ had not been given the extended meaning asserted by the claimant, no qualifying acquisition had occurred, and the clause triggering the longer notice term had not arisen. The clause was a penalty since it failed to require the claimant to mitigate his losses after termination. If the clause had operated, the claimant would have been required to repay the sums due under s322 of the 1985 Act. No award would have been made to the claimant avoid circuity of actions.

Judges:

Stanley Burnton J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 1927 (QB), [2005] IRLR 946

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Companies Act 1985 320 322(3)(b) 727

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Alghussein Establishment v Eton College HL 1985
A literal construction of the relevant provision of a lease would have led to an absurd result that a contractor who failed to complete a development without fault could not call for a lease, whereas a contractor who wilfully defaulted could do so. . .
Cited – Cine Bes Filmcilik Ve Yapimcilik and Another v United International Pictures and Others CA 21-Nov-2003
The parties entered into agreements licensing the exclusive distribution of encrypted television channels within Turkey. A clause provided a calculation of damages for a breach amounting to the balance of licence fees due, and other penalties, . .
Cited – Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company Ltd v New Garage and Motor Company Ltd HL 1-Jul-1914
The appellants contracted through an agent to supply tyres. The respondents contracted not to do certain things, and in case of breach concluded: ‘We agree to pay to the Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company, Ltd. the sum of 5 l. for each and every tyre, . .
Cited – Duckwari Plc v Offerventure Ltd and Another: In Re Duckwari Plc (no 2) CA 8-May-1998
A company director entering into an unapproved contract with his own company was liable to the company for the loss as at the time that loss was realised, not at the time of the breach. Where directors had entered into contracts with their company . .
Cited – Duckwari Plc v Offerventure Ltd and Brian Stanley Cooper; In Re Duckwari Plc (No 2) CA 19-Nov-1998
The company made a claim to recover the borrowing costs incurred to buy property in breach of s320 (no shareholder approval). The acquisition of the property had been unprofitable, and the company was held to be entitled to recover from the . .
Approved – Lordsvale Finance Plc v Bank of Zambia QBD 20-Mar-1996
The court looked at a facility agreement opened by a bank in favour of the defendant which provided that in the event of default the defendant should pay interest during the period of default at an aggregate rate equal to the cost to the bank of . .

Cited by:

Cited – Euro London Appointments Ltd v Claessens International Ltd CA 6-Apr-2006
The court considered whether a clause in an employment agency’s terms and conditions amounted to a penalty and was unenforceable. The contract provided that if the offer was withdrawn by the eventual employer after acceptance but before the . .
Cited – Tullett Prebon Group Ltd v El-Hajjali QBD 31-Jul-2008
The defendant signed an employment contract to join the claimants as a senior broker. He changed his mind and decided to stay in his existing job. The new employers sued for breach of contract. The defendant said that the claimants had refused to . .
Appeal from – Murray v Leisureplay Plc CA 28-Jul-2005
The court considered the extent to which the content of negotiations leading up to the signing of a contract were admissible. Arden LJ said: ‘Lord Dunedin in the Dunlop case makes the point that, although the issue is one of construction, the court . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Employment

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199844

The Fire Brigades Union v Croucher: EAT 2 Jun 2004

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reasonableness of dismissal – Failure of Employment Tribunal to apply Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt [2003] IRLR 23.
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reasonableness of dismissal.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Birtles

Citations:

[2004] UKEAT 0604 – 03 – 2007, UKEAT/0604/03, UKEAT/0169/04

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – A v B EAT 14-Nov-2002
The claimant worked as a residential social worker. Allegations were made against him of inappropriate behaviour with a child. The girl’s allegations varied. A criminal investigation took place but insufficient evidence was found. The investigation . .
Cited – RSPCA v Cruden EAT 1986
The dismissal of an employee of the RSPCA was unfair simply because of a delay with no good reason of some 7 months in initiating proceedings. This was even though the employee had suffered no prejudice as a result of the delay.
If a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199902

Hampson v Department of Education and Science: HL 7 Jun 1990

A teacher of Hong Kong national origin was refused qualified teacher status in this country because the Secretary of State had not exercised a power conferred on him by the relevant regulations to treat her Hong Kong qualifications as equivalent to the necessary UK qualifications. The refusal was alleged to constitute indirect racial discrimination. The Secretary of State argued, and the majority in the Court of Appeal had held, that the Secretary of State was entitled to rely on s. 41 (1) (b) because the decision complained of was taken under powers conferred by a statutory instrument.
Held: A discriminatory act is only saved by the subsection if it is mandated by the statutory provision, or by the arrangements in question.

Judges:

Lord Lowry

Citations:

[1990] ICR 511, [1991] 1 AC 171, [1990] 3 WLR 42, [1990] UKHL 15, [1990] 2 All ER 513, [1990] IRLR 302

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Race Relations Act 1976 41(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Hampson v Department of Education and Science CA 1989
Balcombe LJ said: ‘In my judgment ‘justifiable’ requires an objective balance between the discriminatory effect of the condition and the reasonable needs of the party who applies the condition.’ The task of the Tribunal hearing such a complaint is . .

Cited by:

Cited – Mohammed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence CA 1-May-2007
In 2000, the defendant introduced a policy to make compensation payments for those British services personnel who had been imprisoned by the Japanese in the second world war. The appellant, a citizen of Pakistan had served in the Indian Army, was . .
Cited – O’Hanlon v Revenue and Customs CA 30-Mar-2007
The claimant suffered depression, and complained that the respondent’s reduction in her pay after long periods of sickness was discriminatory. She appealed decisions that it was not. She said that a reasonable adjustment would have been to continue . .
Cited – Amnesty International v Ahmed EAT 13-Aug-2009
amnesty_ahmedEAT2009
EAT RACE DISCRIMINATION – Direct discrimination
RACE DISCRIMINATION – Indirect discrimination
RACE DISCRIMINATION – Protected by s. 41
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Constructive dismissal
Claimant, of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199767

Spicer v Government of Spain: CA 29 Jul 2004

The claimant worked at a school in London operated by the respondent, and he was paid by them. Spanish teachers received relocation allowances, and he complained that this was discriminatory. The respondent had failed to comply with the order made by the EAT.
Held: The failure by the respondent to comply with the order meant that it was now debarred form seeking to rely upon a defence of objective justification. Spanish civil servants relocated here received a higher overall income than their English counterparts. The EAT had erred in finding no detriment to the claimant. In doing so it had readmitted at the back door the defence of objective justification turned away at the front.

Judges:

Lord Justice Ward Lord Justice Wall The Right Honourable Lord Justice Hooper

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1046, Times 10-Sep-2004

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Race Relations Act 1976 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Spicer v Government of Spain EAT 10-Oct-2003
EAT Race Discrimination – Indirect . .
Cited – Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary HL 27-Feb-2003
The applicant was a chief inspector of police. She had been prevented from carrying out appraisals of other senior staff, and complained of sex discrimination.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. The tribunal had taken a two stage approach. It . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199626

V v Addey and Stanhope School: CA 30 Jul 2004

The respondent resisted a claim of unfair dismissal and race discrimination on the basis that the employment contract was illegal since the claimant was an immigrant and unable to work without a work permit.
Held: The Court of Appeal upheld a defence of illegality to a teacher’s complaint against a school of unlawful discrimination by dismissal on racial grounds. The teacher was an asylum-seeker who was not entitled to work in the UK without a work permit, which he never obtained. This not a case where the applicant has been working in good faith in the belief that it was lawful for him to work. As to the illegal conduct here (a) it was that of the applicant; (b) it was criminal; (c) it went far beyond the manner in which one party performed what was otherwise a lawful employment contract; (d) it went to the basic content of an employment situation-work; (e) the duty not to discriminate arises from an employment situation which, without a permit, was unlawful from top to bottom and from beginning to end. The teacher’s employment ‘was unlawful from top to bottom and from beginning to end’.
The court had ‘to consider whether the applicant’s claim arises out of or is so clearly connected or inextricably bound up or linked with the illegal conduct of the applicant that the court could not permit the applicant to recover compensation without appearing to condone that conduct.’ Mummery LJ analysed the inextricable link test: ‘Although Hall’s case . . uses some of the familiar language of legal and factual causation (‘connection’, ‘link’), the test does not restrict the tribunal to a causation question. Matters of fact and degree have to be considered: the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s claim and the illegal conduct, the nature and seriousness of the illegal conduct, the extent of the applicant’s involvement in it and the character of the applicant’s claim are all matters relevant to determining whether the claim is so ‘inextricably bound up with’ the applicant’s illegal conduct that, by permitting the applicant to recover compensation, the tribunal might appear to condone the illegality.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Mummery President, The Vice President Lord Justice Brooke

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1065, Times 28-Sep-2004, [2004] 4 All ER 1056, [2005] 1 CMLR 3, [2005] ICR 231

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 24, Race Relations Act 1976 (Amendment) Regulations 2003, Council Directive 2000/43/EC

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Hall v Woolston Hall Leisure Limited CA 23-May-2000
The fact that an employment contract was tainted with illegality of which the employee was aware, did not deprive the employee of the possibility of claiming rights which were due to her under a statute which created rights associated with but not . .
Appeal from – V v Addey and Stanhope School and others EAT 25-Nov-2003
EAT Race Discrimination – Detriment . .
Cited – Leighton v Michael and Another EAT 26-Oct-1995
A sex discrimination claim stood despite unlawful elements of employment contract. The claim was not barred by the applicant’s knowledge that the employer was not making the required deductions from wages. . .
Cited – Relaxion Group plc v Rhys-Harper; D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth; Jones v 3M Healthcare Limited and three other actions HL 19-Jun-2003
The court considered whether discriminatory acts after the termination of employment were caught by the respective anti-discrimination Acts. The acts included a failure to give proper references. They pursued claims on the basis of victimisation . .
Cited – National Union of Teachers and others v Governing Body of St Mary’s Church of England (Aided) Junior School and others CA 12-Dec-1996
The acquired rights directive applies to a board of governors of a school since it is an ’emanation of state’.
LMA This was a claim by teachers who had lost their jobs. They claimed the protection of te . .

Cited by:

Cited – Witkowska v Kaminski ChD 25-Jul-2006
The claimant sought provision from the estate claiming to have lived with the deceased as his partner for the two years preceding his death. She appealed an order which would be enough to allow her to live in Poland, but not in England. She said . .
Cited – Hounga v Allen and Another SC 30-Jul-2014
The appellant, of Nigerian origin had been brought here at the age of 14 with false identity papers, and was put to work caring for the respondent’s children. In 2008 she was dismissed and ejected from the house. She brought proceedings alleging . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199632

Bush v Zurich Financial Services: EAT 18 Mar 2004

Appeal by claimant against a decision on a preliminary point by an Employment Tribunal at which it was determined that the Appellant was a disabled person within the meaning of Section 1(1) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in the period 23 November 1998 to 15 September 2000 but was not such a person in the subsequent period 16 September 2000 to 10 January 2003.

Judges:

Wakefield J

Citations:

[2004] UKEAT 0832 – 03 – 1803

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Discrimination Act 1995 1(1)

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199405

Regal Travel and Tours Ltd v Patil and others: EAT 25 Mar 2004

EAT Practice and Procedure
Challenge to ET’s decision on a preliminary issue not to ‘disjoin’ the Appellant employers from the proceedings after a new cause of action (TUPE) was identified for the first time at the hearing, necessitating an application for amendments to the IT1 and consideration of the jurisdictional issues. Appeal allowed.

Judges:

Cox J

Citations:

[2004] UKEAT 1002 – 03 – 2503

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199407

Uzoho v Anglian Water Services Ltd: EAT 26 Apr 2004

EAT Unfair Dismissal, Constructive Dismissal
Race Discrimination (Direct)
Admissibility of evidence re: events preceding limitation cut-off in Race Relations Act claim – Evidence which related also to the Applicant’s constructive dismissal claim, based on a series of events leading to a ‘last straw’ alleged to amount to fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence.

Judges:

Peter Clark HHJ

Citations:

[2004] UKEAT 00915 – 03 – 2604

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199411

Grimley v Turner and Jarvis Co Ltd: EAT 26 Mar 2004

EAT Disability Discrimination: meaning of disability
The combination of Section 1 of, and Schedule 1 paragraph 8 to, of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 means that if the Appellant has a progressive condition, and has an insubstantial impairment for 12 months, and a further substantial impairment, he is not required to prove the latter is likely to last 12 months.

Judges:

McMullen QC HHJ

Citations:

[2004] UKEAT 0967 – 03 – 2603, UKEAT/0967/03

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199406

Jones v Sirl and Son (Furnishers) Limited: EAT 1997

In constructive dismissal cases the repudiatory breach by the employer need not be the sole cause of the employee’s resignation. There may well be concurrent causes operating on the mind of an employee whose employer has committed fundamental breaches of contract and that the employee may leave because of both those breaches and another factor, such as the availability of another job.

Citations:

[1997] IRLR 493, [1997] UKEAT 155 – 95 – 0702

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Nottinghamshire County Council v Meikle CA 8-Jul-2004
The claimant was a teacher who had come to suffer a sight disability. She complained that her employers had failed to make reasonable accomodation for her disability, and subsequently she resigned claiming constructive dismissal and damages for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199220

P v West Dorset General Hospital NHS Trust: EAT 9 Jun 2004

EAT Practice and Procedure – Postponement or stay – Application for stay of ET proceedings pending GMC professional misconduct hearing refused. No error of law; if so; stay appropriate.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Clark

Citations:

UKEAT/0288/04, [2004] UKEAT 0288 – 04 – 0906

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Statutes:

Employment Tribunal Procedure Regulations 2001 10(2)(d), Employment Tribunals Act 1996 35

Citing:

Cited – Bastick v James Lane (Turf Accountants) Ltd 1979
The court considered an appeal against a refusal of an adjournment of proceedings before the industrial tribunal when criminal proceedings on the same issues were pending.
Held: The court refused to interfere with the exercise of his dicretion . .
Cited – Roberts v Skelmersdale College CA 20-Jun-2003
. .
Cited – Carter v Credit Change Ltd CA 2-Jan-1979
There are restricted circumstances in which the tribunal can interfere on appeal with the tribunal’s exercise of its discretion. Stephenson LJ said: ‘All the reasons which he gave seem to me to be good reasons for the decision to which he came; many . .
Cited – First Castle Electronics Ltd v West EAT 1989
EAT The court set out the factors to be taken into account when determining whether a stay of employment proceedings pending an action in the high court is appropriate, including a similarity of issues between . .
Cited – Warnock v Scarborough Football Club EAT 1989
EAT The employer, the club’s former manager, had started High Court proceedings for breach of contract. The employee raised the question that he had been constructively dismissed by the employer. The employee, in . .
Cited – Independent Research Services Ltd v Catterall EAT 26-Jun-1992
The claimant was a director of the employer’s company. He claimed that the relationship of trust and confidence with the company had been undermined so far as to be a repudiatory breach of the contract. Before his complaint of unfair dismissal, he . .
Cited – Polkey v A E Dayton Services Limited HL 19-Nov-1987
Mr Polkey was employed as a driver. The company decided to replace four van drivers with two van salesmen and a representative. Mr Polkey and two other van drivers were made redundant. Without warning, he was called in and informed that he had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199285

Photo Corporation (UK) Ltd v Truelove: EAT 20 Apr 2004

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Compensation – Polkey deduction – decision on remission – whether Meek-compliant – whether ET assessment unsustainable on facts found.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Clark

Citations:

[2004] UKEAT 054 – 04 – 2806, UKEAT/0054/04

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Photocorporation (UK) Ltd v Truelove EAT 11-Apr-2003
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Procedural fairness. The tribunal was asked as to the alleged constructive unfair dismissal of a senior manager whose partner leaves and subsequently joins the competition, creating genuine . .
See Also – Photocorporation (Uk) Ltd v Truelove EAT 11-Dec-2003
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Procedural fairness/automatically unfair dismissal. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Photocorporation (UK) Ltd v Truelove EAT 11-Apr-2003
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Procedural fairness. The tribunal was asked as to the alleged constructive unfair dismissal of a senior manager whose partner leaves and subsequently joins the competition, creating genuine . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199298

Villalba v Merrill Lynch and Co Inc Merrill Lynch Europe Ltd (Cayman) Merill Lynch International Bank Ltd: EAT 21 Jun 2004

EAT Equal Pay Act – Material factor defence

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Burton

Citations:

UKEAT/0461/04, [2004] UKEAT 0461 – 04 – 0107

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Cited by:

See Also – S Villalba v Merrill Lynch and Co Inc and others EAT 26-Jul-2005
EAT Sex Discrimination – Victimisation.
EAT Sex Discrimination – Direct . .
See Also – Villalba v Merrill Lynch and Co Inc and others EAT 31-Mar-2006
EAT Victimisation discrimination. Tribunal found victimisation discrimination to a limited extent. Did the Tribunal apply the right test when determining whether such discrimination had arisen? Did it reach . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199283

Street v Derbyshire Unemployed Workers’ Centre: CA 21 Jul 2004

The claimant alleged that she had been dismissed for making qualifying disclosures about her employers. The employer said that her actions had not been in good faith. The claimant answered that her motive was irrelevant. The claimant appealed dismissal of her claim.
Held: The minimum requirement of the Act was that the disclosures were made in good faith. Section 43G(1) required also reasonable belief that the information was true, that it was not made for personal gain, that she would suffer detriment if disclosure was made, and an overall requirement of reasonableness. Good faith meant honest and more according to the context, but honesty might be a requirement also of the other elements. Where an employee, in making a relevant disclosure, has mixed motives, good and bad, the disclosure will not necessarily have been made in bad faith. The statutory protection is afforded to those who make disclosures in the public interest. There should only be a finding of absence of good faith if the predominant motive was ulterior. The tribunal had found the main, if not sole motive to be personal animosity, and it was not for an appellate court to disturb that finding. Appeal dismissed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Auld Lord Justice Wall Lord Justice Jacob

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 964, Times 06-Sep-2004, [2004] IRLR 687, [2004] 4 All ER 839, [2005] ICR 97

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 43B 43G(1), Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Street v Derbyshire Unemployed Workers Centre EAT 22-Sep-2003
The employee claimed that the behaviour which gave rise to her dismissal was a protected disclosure, and that her motive was irrelevant.
Held: The fact that what was disclosed was true was not conclusive to protect the disclosure. The court . .
Cited – Horrocks v Lowe HL 1974
The plaintiff complained of an alleged slander spoken at a meeting of the Town Council. The council meeting was an occasion attracting qualified privilege. The judge at trial found that the councillor honestly believed that what he had said in the . .
Cited – ALM Medical Services Ltd v Bladon EAT 19-Jan-2001
. .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) HL 1966
The House gave guidance how it would treat an invitation to depart from a previous decision of the House. Such a course was possible, but the direction was not an ‘open sesame’ for a differently constituted committee to prefer their views to those . .

Cited by:

Cited – Babula v Waltham Forest College CA 7-Mar-2007
The claimant said his dismissal had been automatically unfair under section 106(a) which protected him as a whistleblower. The court was asked whether any disclosure had to relate to an actual criminal offence, or otherwise what would be sufficient. . .
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 . .
Cited – Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust EAT 18-Mar-2011
EAT CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Disciplinary and grievance procedure
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason
(1) An employee who has been dismissed because of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199313

Air 2000 Ltd v D Mallam: EAT 16 Mar 2004

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Polkey deduction

Judges:

The Honourable Mrs Justice Cox

Citations:

UKEAT/0773/03, [2004] UKEAT 0773 – 03 – 1603, UKEAT/0058/04

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Citing:

Cited – Securicor Omega Express Ltd v GMB (A Trade Union) EAT 7-Apr-2003
EAT The company decided to close two branches and make redundancies. They presented the closure itself as a fait accompli to the union representatives. The Tribunal found that this involved a failure to consult . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199306

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 ECM point should have been injected into the (otherwise correctly applied) Spijkers test. Appeal dismissed.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Burton

Citations:

UKEAT/0971/03, [2004] UKEAT 0970 – 03 – 2005

Links:

Bailii, EATn, EATn

Statutes:

Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981

Citing:

Mentioned – Fairhurst Ward Abbotts Limited v Botes Building Limited and others CA 13-Feb-2004
A claim was made under the TUPE regulations. The company replied that the part of the business transferred was not a discrete economic entity.
Held: The regulations did not require that in order to be governed by the regulations, a business . .
Cited – Fairhurst Ward Abbots Ltd v Botes Building Ltd and Another EAT 27-Mar-2003
The company claimed that on the transfer of its business, the fact that the undertaking would be conducted by more than one company meant that the regulations did not apply.
Held: A substantial protection for employees would be lost if the . .
Cited – Spijkers v Gebroeders Benedik Abattoir ECJ 18-Mar-1986
ECJ Social policy – approximation of laws – transfers of undertakings – safeguarding of employees’ rights – Directive no 77/187 – transfer – meaning
(Council Directive no 77/187, art. 1(1).
The . .
Cited – Foreningen Af Arbejdsledere I Danmark v Daddy’s Dance Hall A/S ECJ 10-Feb-1988
The claimant, Mr Tellerup, was employed as a restaurant manager by the transferor, Irma Catering A/S. When its lease was terminated it dismissed all staff. Mr Tellerup’s statutory period of notice expired on 30 April 1983. But it continued to run . .
Cited – Suzen v Zehnacker Gebaudereinigung Krankenhausservice (Judgment) ECJ 11-Mar-1997
A transfer of a contract to provide business services, without the transfer of significant assets was not a transfer of an undertaking within the Directive. Nevertheless the transfer of tangible assets was only one factor among several. . .
Cited – ADI (UK) Limited v Firm Security Group Limited CA 22-Jun-2001
ADI appealed against a decision that, when they took over a services contract, there had been a transfer within the Regulations.
Held: Though no assets tangible or otherwise, had been transferred, this was a contract to provide services at a . .
Cited – Brookes and 334 Others v Borough Care Services and CLS Care Services Ltd EAT 4-Aug-1998
Where a transfer of a business had been arranged by way of a transfer of shares rather than of the business and particularly in order to avoid the Regulations, the transfer of shares took effect as a transfer of the undertaking and so the . .
Cited – ECM (Vehicle Delivery) Services Ltd v B Cox and others CA 22-Jul-1999
Employees within a unit, who were employed to satisfy requirements of a particular contract in one firm, had the right to transfer to a different firm which wrested the contract from the original employers. The arrangement of changing the contract . .
Cited – Whitewater Leisure Management Ltd v L Barnes and others EAT 18-Apr-2000
EAT Burton J considered the cases of ECM and Betts as to whether there had been a transfer of the undertaking saying: ‘but what the Court of Appeal in Betts did not say, and indeed the Court of Appeal in ECM did . .
Cited – RCO Support Services Ltd v Unison and others CA 12-Apr-2002
TUPE . .
Cited – Whitewater Leisure Management Ltd v L Barnes and others EAT 18-Apr-2000
EAT Burton J considered the cases of ECM and Betts as to whether there had been a transfer of the undertaking saying: ‘but what the Court of Appeal in Betts did not say, and indeed the Court of Appeal in ECM did . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.198924

Dunnachie v Kingston-upon-Hull City Council: HL 15 Jul 2004

The claimant sought damages following his dismissal to include a sum to reflect the manner of his dismissal and the distress caused.
Held: The remarks of Lord Hoffmann in Johnson -v- Unysis were obiter. The court could not, under the section, include any element for a non-financial loss, such as injury to feelings arising from the dismissal itself.

Judges:

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood

Citations:

[2004] UKHL 36, Times 16-Jul-2004, [2005] 1 AC 226, Gazette 11-Mar-2004, [2004] ICR 1052

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 123(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Norton Tool Co Ltd v Tewson NIRC 30-Oct-1972
(National Industrial Relations Court) The court was asked to calculate damages on a dismissal, and particularly as to whether the manner of the dismissal should affect the damages.
Held: The common law rules and authorities on wrongful . .
Appeal from – Dunnachie v Kingston Upon Hull City Council CA 11-Feb-2004
Compensation for non-economic loss brought about by the manner of an unfair dismissal is, on authority and on principle, recoverable. The award of such compensation by the employment tribunal in the present case was not excessive and was adequately . .
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 – Robert Normansell (Birmingham) Ltd v Barfield 1973
The court refused to award damages for non-economic loss after a dismissal, and particularly in this case for loss of job satisfaction. . .
Cited – Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI); Mahmud v Bank of Credit and Commerce International HL 12-Jun-1997
Allowance of Stigma Damages
The employees claimed damages, saying that the way in which their employer had behaved during their employment had led to continuing losses, ‘stigma damages’ after the termination.
Held: It is an implied term of any contract of employment that . .
Cited – Wellman Alloys Ltd v Russell 1973
Only economic losses are recoverable following a dismissal. . .
Cited – W Devis and Sons Ltd v Atkins HL 6-Jul-1977
The ‘just and equitable’ test warranted the reduction or extinction of compensation for an employee who has been unfairly dismissed and then found to have been liable to summary dismissal. ‘The paragraph does not, nor did s. 116 of the Act of 1971, . .
Cited – Vaughan v Weighpack Ltd NIRC 1974
(National Industrial Relations Court) In a claim for compensation for unfair dismissal, the employee should be treated as having suffered a loss in so far as he received less than he would have received in accordance with good industrial practice. . .
At EAT – 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 . .
See Also – Kingston Upon Hull City Council v Dunnachie EAT 23-Jun-2003
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Procedural fairness/automatically unfair dismissal. . .
See Also – Kingston Upon Hull City Council v Dunnachie; HSBC Bank Plc v Drage EAT 7-Jul-2003
EAT Practice and Procedure – Costs
EAT Practice and Procedure – Costs. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Eastwood and another v Magnox Electric plc; McCabe v Cornwall County Council and others HL 15-Jul-2004
The first claimants were long standing employees. Mr Eastwood fell out with his manager, who disciplined him using false statements. When Williams refused to provide a false statement he too was disciplined. Each claimed damages for the injury to . .
Cited – Jones, Regina (on the Application of) v Ceredigion County Council Admn 22-Jun-2004
The parents lawfully chose to send their child to a Welsh language school. The authority refused to provide free transport on the basis that a nearer school was available even though it was not a Welsh language school.
Held: Provided the . .
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 – Stuart Peters Limited v Bell EAT 22-Oct-2008
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL: Compensation/Mitigation of loss
The employee was unfairly constructively dismissed. She was entitled to a 6 month notice period that was not paid by the employees in that period, . .
Cited – Stuart Peters Ltd v Bell CA 30-Jul-2009
The claimant had a contract entitling her to six month’s notice. She left claiming constructive dismissed, but found work shortly after. She still sought the full six months’ pay. The EAT found in her favour. The employer appealed.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Employment

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.198761

Roberts v West Coast Trains Ltd: CA 16 Jun 2004

The employee had been dismissed. He began a claim for unfair dismissal, but also appealed within his employers’ procedure, accepting a demotion. The tribunal then found that he had not been dismissed.
Held: There had been no dismissal. Had he not been re-instated, his dismissal would have ben unfair, but the appeal decision did not amount to a re-engagement after a dismissal, but rather operated within the original contract. If he had withdrawn his appeal the employer would not have been free to determine it. In pursuing his appeal, the employee risked that if he was re-instated, he would lose his claim for unfair dismissal.

Judges:

Mummery, Arden LJJ, Cage J

Citations:

Times 25-Jun-2004, [2004] EWCA Civ 900, [2004] IRLR 788, [2005] ICR 254,

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 95

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Roberts v West Coast Trains Ltd EAT 24-Jul-2003
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for dismissal
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason. . .

Cited by:

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 . .
Cited – Bournemouth University Higher Education Corp v Buckland EAT 8-May-2009
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL: Constructive dismissal
Whether fundamental breach of implied term of trust and confidence cured, so that the Claimant’s resignation did not amount to constructive dismissal.
Considered – Piper v Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust EAT 18-Dec-2012
EAT Unfair Dismissal : Dismissal or Ambiguous Resignation – Whether sanction short of dismissal on internal appeal expunged earlier dismissal. Employment Tribunal held: yes. On analysis, the contractual provision . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.198391

Yearwood v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis A Fisher: EAT 30 Mar 2004

EAT Sex Discrimination – Vicarious liability
1. The reference to agency in the SDA and RRA is to agency at common law. There is no alternative construction, in order to give effect to the purpose of the ET Directive.
2. A police officer appointed as investigating or supervising officer in statutory police disciplinary proceedings is not the agent of the chief officer of police who is not liable for unlawful discrimination by those officers. A civilian officer may be an agent or may be carrying out management functions for which the chief officer is responsible.
3. Delay in re-fixing an adjourned hearing may make the Decision unsafe.

Judges:

McMullen QC HHJ

Citations:

UKEAT/0310/03, [2004] UKEAT 0310 – 03 – 2805

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.198456

Breeze Benton Solicitors (A Partnership) v Weddell: EAT 13 May 2004

EAT Practice and Procedure – Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity – Appeal based on refusal of ET Chairman to recuse himself following previous proceedings involving the same Respondent and his complaint to the LCD concerning the Chairman’s conduct. Appeal allowed. Case to be reheard by different ET.

Judges:

The Honourable Mrs Justice Cox

Citations:

UKEAT/0873/03, [2004] UKEAT 0873 – 03 – 1805

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Cited by:

Cited – Ansar v Lloyds TSB Bank Plc and others CA 9-Oct-2006
The claimant challenged a decision of the chairman of the Employment tribunal not to recuse himself on a later hearing after the claimant had previously made allegations of bias and improper conduct against him. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.198272

Walker v Barnes: CA 26 May 2004

Request for permission to appeal

Judges:

Sedley LJ

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 687

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Walker v Barnes CA 19-Oct-2004
. .
Appeal from – Walker v Barnes EAT 17-Feb-2004
EAT Practice and Procedure – Perversity
EAT Practice and Procedure – Perversity. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Walker v Barnes CA 19-Oct-2004
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.198202

Macarthys Ltd v Smith: CA 1980

The employee had taken on a job substantially similar to that of a previous male employee, but had been paid less. She succeeded in a claim under the 1971 Act before the industrial tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal. The employer appealed again. The employer argued that usung the ordinary and natural meaning of the words in the Act, a former employee was not a possible comparator.
Held: The CA framed four questions to be referred to the ECJ: ‘1. Is the principle of equal pay for equal work, contained in article 119 of the eec treaty and article 1 of the eec council directive of 10 february 1975 (75/117/eec), confined to situations in which men and women are contemporaneously doing equal work for their employer? 2. If the answer to question 1 is in the negative, does the said principle apply where a worker can show that she receives less pay in respect of her employment from her employer: (a) than she would have received if she were a man doing equal work for the employer ; or (b) than had been received by a male worker who had been employed prior to her period of employment and who had been doing equal work for the employer? 3. If the answer to question 2(a) or (b) is in the affirmative, is that answer dependent upon the provisions of article 1 of the said directive? 4. If the answer to question 3 is in the affirmative, is article 1 of the said directive directly applicable in member states?’

Citations:

[1981] QB 180, [1980] 3 WLR 929, [1981] 1 All ER 111, [1980] ICR 672

Statutes:

Council Directive 75/117/EEC

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Defrenne v Sabena (No 2) ECJ 8-Apr-1976
ECJ The principle that men and women should receive equal pay, which is laid down by article 119, is one of the foundations of the community. It may be relied on before the national courts. These courts have a . .
Appeal from – Smith v Macarthys Ltd EAT 14-Dec-1977
Mrs Smith was employed by the respondents, wholesale dealers in pharmaceutical products, as a warehouse manageress at a weekly salary of andpound;50. She complained of discrimination in pay because her male predecessor whose post she took up after . .

Cited by:

Reference From – Macarthys Ltd v Smith ECJ 27-Mar-1980
The first paragraph of article 119 of the EEC Treaty applies directly, and without the need for more detailed implementing measures on the part of the community or the member states, to all forms of direct and overt discrimination which may be . .
At CA (1) – Macarthys Ltd v Smith (No.2) CA 17-Apr-1980
The parties had disputed a difference in payment between the woman applicant and men doing similar work. After a lengthy dispute the parties now disputed the costs.
Held: The company had correctly been ordered to pay the costs. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.200626

Weddel and Company v Tepper: CA 1980

Whether employer’s belief in employee’s misconduct was reasonable.

Citations:

[1980] IRLR 1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Approved – British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell EAT 1978
B had been dismissed for allegedly being involved with a number of other employees in acts of dishonesty relating to staff purchases. She had denied the abuse. The tribunal had found the dismissal unfair in the methods used to decide to dismiss her. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Meakin v Liverpool City Council, Leisure Services Directorate EAT 28-Sep-2001
The applicant had worked for the respondent for many years. He was alleged to have been involved in a fight on the premises, and under the applicable policy, this was gross misconduct. He was dismissed, and appealed a finding against his unfair . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.183021

Kolfor Plant Ltd v Wright: CA 1982

The court considered a claim for Maternity leave.
Lord McDonald said: ‘In our opinion an employee who claims to have been dismissed through the failure of her employer to permit her to return to work after absence due to pregnancy or confinement must bring herself within the provisions of section 56. Paragraph 6(2) of Schedule 2 makes it quite clear that even where her contract of employment subsists an ordinary claim for unfair dismissal is not open where the dismissal occurs in the course of her attempting to return to work, which is the position here.’

Judges:

Lord McDonald

Citations:

[1982] IRLR 311

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Kwik Save Stores Limited v Greaves; Crees v Royal London Mutual Insurance Society Limited CA 20-Jan-1998
Women had taken extended maternity leave, but having followed the procedures, had been unable for illness to return to work on the day they had notified. The employer then asserted that the claimants had resigned. The EAT had confirm that they had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.194003

Khan v Trident Safeguards Ltd and others: CA 19 May 2004

The claimant had ben made bankrupt. The defendant argued that his claim vested in the trustee.
Held: A discrimination claim was hybrid in nature rather than purely personal, and so it vested in the trustee. However the real issue was the actual claim made. In this case the claimant could seek only the personal elements for damages to injured feelings. If the claim was so limited, it would cease to be a hybrid claim, and he would have the right to bring the action.

Judges:

The Hon Mrs Justice Arden Dbe Lord Justice Buxton Lord Justice Wall

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 624, Times 28-May-2004

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Ord v Upton CA 7-Jan-2000
A bankrupt labourer (aged 30) after the bankruptcy order issued a writ against a doctor who had treated him for back pain before the bankruptcy order, claiming damages for negligence, including damages for pain and suffering as well as damages for . .
Cited – Mulkerrins v Pricewaterhouse Coopers HL 31-Jul-2003
The claimant sought damages from her former accountants for failing to protect her from bankruptcy. The receiver had unnecessarily caused great difficulties in making their claim that such an action vested in them. The defendants had subsequently, . .
See Also – Khan v Trident Safeguards Ltd and others EAT 6-Nov-2000
. .
See Also – Khan v Trident Safeguards Ltd and others EAT 22-Oct-2001
. .
Cited – Khan v Trident Safeguards Ltd and others EAT 24-Jun-2002
. .
See Also – Khan v Trident Safeguards Ltd EAT 15-Jan-2003
. .
See Also – Khan v Trident Safeguard Ltd, North British Housing; Noke Rodgers EAT 25-Feb-2003
EAT Insolvency
EAT Insolvency – (no sub-topic) . .

Cited by:

See Also – Khan v Trident Safeguards Limited, Shaw, King, Wright, Harman EAT 6-May-2005
EAT Race Discrimination – Direct – Victimisation. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Insolvency, Discrimination

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.197050

Medley v Working Men’s Club and Institute Union Ltd: EAT 10 Mar 2004

EAT Sex Discrimination – Lady members of local club not allowed to be associates of CIU (umbrella organisation). S. 12 of Sex Discrimination Act 1975 not applicable as CIU not relevant organisation and ‘associates’ are not members.

Judges:

he Honourable Mr Justice Burton

Citations:

[2004] UKEAT 0782 – 03 – 1003, UKEAT/782/03/ILB

Links:

Bailii

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.196807

Vince-Cain v Orthet Ltd: EAT 5 Mar 2004

Unfair Dismissal – Reason for dismissal – Refusal of an application by an employer to argue that it is wrong in law under SDA 1975 section 65 to gross up an award for compensation when its own submission to the opposite effect had been accepted by the Employment Tribunal.

Judges:

McMullen QC HHJ

Citations:

[2004] UKEAT 0801 – 04 – 0503, UKEAT/801/03

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Statutes:

Sex Discrimination Act 1975 65

Cited by:

See Also – Orthet Ltd v Vince-Cain EAT 12-Aug-2004
EAT Sex discrimination: compensation – An award of compensation for injury to feelings, pursuant to a finding of unlawful discrimination on the grounds of gender or victimisation is to be made without reference . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.196810

Paterson and others v London Borough of Islington and others: EAT 23 Apr 2004

Judges:

Rimer J

Citations:

[2004] UKEAT 0347 – 03 – 2304

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Equal Pay Act 1970

Cited by:

Cited – South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council v Anderson and others EAT 26-Mar-2007
The council appealed a finding that there was no genuine material factor justifying a difference in pay, and in particular the availability of bonus schemes. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.196815

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 the case was unreasonable. It should have asked whether the case as a whole was reasonably pursued. It was nevertheless open to the tribunal to find, on the facts, that the proceedings as a whole had been conducted unreasonably.
Mummery LJ stated: ‘The principal of relevance means that the tribunal must have regard to the nature, gravity and effect of the unreasonable conduct as factors relevant to the exercise of the discretion but that is not the same as requiring [the receiving party] to prove that specific unreasonable conduct by [the paying party] caused particular costs to be incurred’.

Judges:

Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Thorpe Mr Justice Bennett

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 569, Times 31-May-2004, [2004] EWCA Civ 616, [2004] ICR 1398, [2004] 4 Costs LR 596, [2004] 3 All ER 266, [2004] IRLR 558, [2004] EWHC 90034 (Costs), [2004] ICR 1938

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2001 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – McPherson v BNP Paribas Branch EAT 28-May-2003
EAT Practice and Procedure – Application/Claim. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Mcpherson v BNP Paribas (London Branch) SCCO 13-Jun-2004
. .
Cited – Yerrakalva v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council and Another EAT 8-Dec-2010
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs
Discrimination claim withdrawn – Judge awards Rs 100% of their costs, not on the basis that the claim had been misconceived or unreasonably pursued from the start but . .
Cited – Cass v Amt-Sybex (Northern Ireland) Ltd NIIT 26-Jan-2011
The decision of the tribunal is that the respondents’ application for costs is refused. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Employment

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.197001

Ministry of Defence v Armstrong and Another: EAT 7 Apr 2004

The MOD (the Appellants) contend that the Employment Tribunal erred in law in holding, in a Decision promulgated on 17 September 2002 after a preliminary hearing, that they had not established a ‘material factor’ defence to the Respondents’ claims for equal pay, pursuant to the provisions of the Equal Pay Act 1970 and Article 141 of the Treaty of Rome.

Judges:

Cox J

Citations:

[2004] UKEAT 1239 – 02 – 0704, [2004] UKEAT 1239 – 02 – 0704, [2004] IRLR 672

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.196814

West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive v Singh: CA 1988

The court identified ‘a conscious or unconscious racial attitude which involves stereotyped assumptions’ underlying discrimination. Statistical evidence may be used to establish a discernible pattern in the treatment of a particular group such as to give rise to an inference of discrimination.

Judges:

Balcombe LJ

Citations:

[1988] 1 WLR 730, [1988] ICR 614

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – European Roma Rights Centre and others v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport and Another CA 20-May-2003
A scheme had been introduced to arrange pre-entry clearance for visitors to the United Kingdom by posting of immigration officers in the Czech Republic. The claimants argued that the system was discriminatory, because Roma visitors were now . .
Cited – Appiah and Another v Bishop Douglas Roman Catholic High School CA 26-Jan-2007
Black students of African origin, had been excluded from school after an incident. They appealed rejection of their claims for race discrimination and victimisation, saying that they had been at first excluded wrongfully.
Held: ‘Consideration . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.182464

Cleveland Ambulance National Health Service Trust v Blane: EAT 19 Feb 1997

An Industrial Tribunal can award damages for injured feelings on a complaint of action which fell short of a dismissal.
Held: Judge Peter Clark said: ‘It is nothing to the point that an award for injury to feelings cannot be recovered in a wrongful dismissal or unfair dismissal claim. They are different claims, compensated in different ways. We do not accept that a complaint under section 146(1) of the Act of 1992 can simply be categorised as less serious and therefore cannot allow of a head of compensation not provided for in claims of unfair dismissal or wrongful dismissal. Apart from the different wording of the section, the intention behind it is clear; an employee who is unfairly dismissed would normally suffer pecuniary loss, and that, Parliament has decided, will adequately compensate him for the wrong. In a case of action short of dismissal it may very well be that he can point to no pecuniary loss; nevertheless, Parliament has decided that he should be able to recover financial compensation ‘having regard to the infringement complained of’. That must, in our judgment, include injury to his feelings occasioned by the unlawful act.’

Judges:

Judge Peter Clark

Citations:

Times 04-Mar-1997, [1997] ICR 851, [1997] UKEAT 1046 – 96 – 1902

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 149(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Heywood v Wellers CA 1976
The claimant instructed solicitors in injunction proceedings which they conducted negligently. The solicitors had put the case in the hands of an incompetent junior clerk. She sued acting in person, and succeeded but now appealed the only limited . .

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: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.79215

Iwaniukowicz v Harvey Nichols: CA 19 Feb 1997

The claimant sought leave to appeal out of time. He had been asked to produce for the court the usual bundles of documents. However he had failed to do so.
Held: The application had no prospect of success. In such very clear circumstances, rather than putting an appellant to such trouble, the court could of its own motion dismiss the claim summarily.

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 1050

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.141446

Small Lots (Mix-It) Ltd v MacFarlane: EAT 10 Dec 1998

Citations:

[1998] UKEAT 1256 – 98 – 1012

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Hogg v Dover College EAT 1990
The claimant asserted unfair dismissal after his contract was changed to provide that his post as head of the history department would be part time. He had been ill, and the head teacher reduced his teaching periods. He accepted the change in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.207057