Category: Employment

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.

Judges:

His Hon Judge McMullen QC

Citations:

UKEAT/0998/03, [2004] UKEAT 0998 – 03 – 1604

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.196035

Bower v Stevens and Another: CA 6 Apr 2004

The claimant had been employed by the respondents, partners in a former firm of solicitors. On the retirement of one partner, the practice was continued by the sole remaining partner, who claimed that the dissolution broke the continuity of the employment so as to defeat her application for unfair dismissal.
Held: The dissolution of the partnership did not break the continuity of employment. ‘the purpose of section 218(5) is to protect an employee in the enjoyment of his statutory rights notwithstanding changes of personnel in the partnership or among the personal representatives or trustees who employ him. ‘

Judges:

Lord Justice Potter, Lord Justice Longmore, Lord Justice Maurice Kay

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 496, Times 24-May-2004

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 218(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Jeetle v Elster EAT 1985
The EAT considered the decision in Mansi: ‘Looked at as a whole, paragraph 17(5) [that is the paragraph then in force] is quite clearly intended to be a comprehensive provision to cover changes in the composition of those who comprise an ’employer’ . .
Not Followed – Harold Fielding Ltd v Mansi NIRC 1974
An employee had been employed by two partners and later by one of them.
Held: Mr Mansi could not bring himself within the provision because: ‘Where one of two partners leaves the partnership, there are no partners, but only a sole proprietor, . .
Cited – Wynne v Hair Control 1978
A sole proprietorship gave way to a partnership of which the previous sole proprietor was a member. The employee’s continuous employment was broken. . .
Cited – Allen and Son v Coventry EAT 1980
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.196083

Wilson (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Clayton: ChD 29 Apr 2004

Taxability of compensation paid on compromise of claims after dismissal. The employer introduced new terms, withdrawing car benefits. Having refused the new terms the taxpayer was dismissed. A tribunal held him unfairly dismissed. The council re-instated him and others and made a compensatory payment. The Revenue contended that the re-instatement made the payment taxable.
Held: The cases of Hochstrasser and Wilmshurst set the test for what wa staxable pay. This payment resulted from a negotiated settlement, and was directly consequential of the dismissal and finding of unfair dismissal. The payment was not taxable because it was under andpound;30,000.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Patten

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 898 (Ch), Times 07-Jun-2004, Gazette 13-May-2004, [2004] STC 1022

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 148

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Shilton v Wilmshurst HL 7-Feb-1991
The taxpayer was transferred from one football club to another. He was paid andpound;75,000 to persuade him to move. The revenue appealed a decision that this was not a sum taxable as an emolument under Schedule E by the new employer.
Held: . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Wilson (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Clayton CA 7-Dec-2004
The claim against the defendant at the tribunal had been settled by a compromise which had then been the subject of an order by the tribunal. The Revenue sought to charge the payment to income tax.
Held: It had been paid ‘in connection with’ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax, Employment

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.196104

McDougall and Another v Glasgow City Council: EAT 26 Mar 2004

Appeal by two appellants in respect of a finding by the Employment Tribunal sitting in Glasgow, that during the time they worked as gymnastic coaches for Glasgow City Council, they were neither employees nor workers.

Judges:

The Honourable Lord Johnston

Citations:

[2004] UKEAT 0073 – 03 – 2603

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Employment, Scotland

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.195929

Scott v Inland Revenue: CA 2 Apr 2004

The employee had claimed damages for unfair dismissal. The Revenue had subsequently changed its policy on retirement, but did not disclose this to the claimant. The change would have altered the calculation of the damages.
Held: A calculation based upon the new policy would have resulted in a larger multiplicand for the loss of earnings. Although the change in policy later came into the public domain, it was not disclosed when the change occurred, and the revenue, having originally disclosed the first policy remained under a continuing obligation to disclose the change. The court would not have power to remit the case on that ground since the point was known but unpursued at the EAT, but since it was being remitted on other grounds, the parties might reconsider their submissions.
The relevant question in considering whether the pursuit, or defence, of a claim was misconceived was not whether the party in question thought they were right but whether they had reasonable grounds for so thinking.

Judges:

Lord Justice Sedley, Lord Justice Wall, And Mr Justice Pumfrey

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 400, Times 19-Apr-2004, [2004] IRLR 713, [2004] ICR 1410

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Alexander v Home Office CA 1988
Prisoners are a section of the public for the purposes of the 1976 Act. The Court increased an award for injury to feelings awarded for race discrimination by prison officers from pounds 50 to pounds 500. The court considered the appropriate level . .
Cited – Vento v The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (No 2) CA 20-Dec-2002
The claimant had been awarded damages for sex discrimination, including a sum of andpound;25,000 for injury to feelings. The respondent appealed.
Held: The Court of Appeal looked to see whether there had been an error of law in the employment . .
Cited – Gee v Shell UK Ltd CA 24-Oct-2002
The claimant sought an award for unfair dismissal. A similar case had been decided against another worker, and the respondent warned that it would want its costs. The tribunal gave her a warning that she was at risk of a costs order. She withdrew . .
Cited – British Aerospace plc v Green and Others CA 18-Apr-1995
The employer was to make 530 members of its staff redundant. Each staff member was assessed and scored. The claimants said that the method of selection was unfair, and sought disclosure of the scores of all employees.
Held: It was wrong to . .

Cited by:

Cited – Vaughan v London Borough of Lewisham and Others (Practice and Procedure : Costs) EAT 6-Jun-2013
EAT Practice and Procedure : Costs – Tribunal orders that Appellant should pay Respondents one-third of their costs (estimated prior to assessment at andpound;260,000) on the basis that the claim was misconceived . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.195639

Spencer v HM Prison Service Agency: EAT 3 Dec 2003

EAT Practice and Procedure – Preliminary issues

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Rimer

Citations:

[2004] UKEAT 0812 – 02 – 0403, UKEAT/812/02

Links:

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

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.195461

Strouthos v London Underground Ltd: CA 18 Mar 2004

The claimant had been dismissed after being accused of taking a staff car to France and having it impounded for suspected importation of cigarettes and alcohol above personal use limits.
Held: ‘It is a basic proposition, whether in criminal or disciplinary proceedings, that the charge against the defendant or the employee facing dismissal should be precisely framed, and that evidence should be confined to the particulars given in the charge.’ Length of service is a relevant consideration for a tribunal to take into account when considering the fairness of the employer’s aproach. The ET had been entitled to reach the conclusion they did reach.

Judges:

May, Pill, Dyson LJJ

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 402, [2004] IRLR 636

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Right Act 1996 98

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – London Underground Ltd v Strouthos EAT 4-Jun-2003
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason. . .
Cited – 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 – Foley v Post Office; HSBC Bank Plc (Formerly Midland Bank Plc) v Madden CA 31-Jul-2000
When an Employment Tribunal looked at whether a dismissal was reasonable, the test related not to an assessment of what tribunal members would think or do, but rather whether to ask whether the employer’s response was within a ‘band or range of . .
Cited – London Borough of Harrow v Cunningham EAT 2-Nov-1995
The council appealed a finding that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed. He worked in the Cleansing Department, but took on additional private work in refuge disposal in breach of his contract. A co-worker who had done the same was not . .
Cited – AEI Cables Limited v McLay SCS 1980
It was found that the only remaining reason for supporting the decision that the dismissal was unfair, was identified as the employee’s length of service — the remaining reason given by the industrial tribunal for finding the dismissal unfair.
Cited – Bentley Engineering Co Ltd v Mistry EAT 1978
In employment disciplinary proceedings, natural justice required that a man should have a chance to state his own case and to know sufficiently what was being said against him, so that he could put forward his own case properly.
Slynn J said: . .
Cited – Fuller v Lloyds Bank PLC EAT 1991
The tribunal emphasised the need for a disciplinary procedure to be fair in providing an employee opportunities to know the case against him, and the evidence, and to be given chance to dispute that evidence. . .
Cited – Spink v Express Foods Limited EAT 1990
Wood J said: ‘It is a fundamental part of a fair disciplinary procedure that an employee know the case against him. Fairness requires that someone accused should know the case to be met; should hear or be told the important parts of the evidence in . .
See Also – London Underground Ltd v Strouthos CA 17-Dec-2003
Application for permission to appeal from EAT – granted . .

Cited by:

Cited – Mars UK Ltd T/A Masterfoods v K Parker EAT 24-Oct-2005
EAT Whether an Employment Tribunal took a permissible approach to determining that a dismissal was unfair, in circumstances in which it did not clearly set out the terms of section 98 of the Employment Rights Act . .
Cited – Knight v Treherne Care and Consultancy Ltd EAT 15-Apr-2009
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL
The Employment Tribunal erred when it found the employee was not unfairly dismissed. There was no disciplinary hearing. In the light of London Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Small [2009] . .
Cited – Leonard v Scottish Prison Service EAT 18-Jul-2012
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal
Dismissal of prison officer for gross misconduct, namely that he was ‘negligent in [his] duty in failing to take appropriate action when an incident . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.195112

Merino Gomez v Continental Industrias del Caucho SA: ECJ 18 Mar 2004

Where the dates of a worker’s maternity leave coincided with those of the general annual leave fixed, by a collective agreement, for the entire workforce, the requirements of the Working Times Directive relating to paid annual leave could not be regarded as having been met.
The court said: ‘The entitlement of every worker to paid annual leave must be regarded as a particularly important principle of Community social law from which there can be no derogations and whose implementation by the competent national authorities must be confined within the limits expressly laid down by Directive 93/104.
It is significant in that connection that that Directive also embodies the rule that a worker must normally be entitled to actual rest, with a view to ensuring effective protection of his health and safety, since it is only where the employment relationship is terminated that article 7(2) permits an allowance to be paid in lieu of paid annual leave.
The purpose of the entitlement to annual leave is different from that of the entitlement to maternity leave. Maternity leave is intended, first, to protect a woman’s biological condition during and after pregnancy and, secondly, to protect the special relationship between a woman and her child over the period which follows pregnancy and childbirth.’

Citations:

C-342/01, [2004] EUECJ C-342/01, [2005] ICR 1040

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Stringer and Others v Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs; Schultz-Hoff v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund ECJ 20-Jan-2009
(Grand Chamber) Several employees claimed that having been absent from work sick, they were entitled to carry forward their unused holiday entitlements, or if a former worker, to pay in lieu under the Working Time directive.
Held: The workers . .
Cited – Russell and Others v Transocean International Resources Ltd and Others SC 7-Dec-2011
russell_transocean
The appellants worked on various shifts for the defendants in off-shore oil-fields. They were given on-shore rest breaks, which the employers said should count toward their holiday entitlements.
Held: The Court dismissed the employees’ appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Employment

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.194870

J K Bansi v Alpha Flight Services: EAT 3 Feb 2004

EAT Redundancy – Collective consultation and information. Serota QC J said: ‘In English v Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd . . the Court of Appeal gave guidance as to the circumstances in which a Judge might be invited to amplify his reasons and findings where these are considered to be insufficient. The EAT has adopted the approach recommended by the Court of Appeal on a number of occasions and remitted cases to the ET for amplification of reasons at an early stage in the appeal process; see Adebowale v Peninsula Business Services (EAT/1135/02/DA) in which the President said that the Court of Appeal had
‘expressly encouraged Courts considering whether an appeal should proceed on grounds of alleged failure to make findings, or alleged absence of reasons, to consider referring the case back to the lower Court for clarification”.
We need not, therefore set out the dicta in English v Emery Reimbold and Strick.
In Re T (a child: contact) 2003 1 FLR 303 (a care case) the Court of Appeal took the question of seeking clarification from a first instance Judge a stage further. Arden LJ , having considered English v Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd went on to say that the principle applied to appeals in care cases as well as to other appeals. She said: ‘In a complex case, it might well be prudent, and certainly not out of place, for the judge, having handed down or delivered judgment, to ask the advocates whether there are any matters which he has not covered. Even if he does not, as a matter of courtesy at least, to draw the judge’s attention to any material omission of which he is then aware or then believes exists. It is well-established that it is open to a judge to amend his judgment, if he thinks fit, at any time up to the drawing of the order. In many cases, the advocate ought to raise the matter with the judge in pursuance of his duty to assist the court to achieve the overriding objective (CPR 1.3, which does not as such apply to these proceedings); and in some cases, it may follow from the advocate’s duty not to mislead the court that he should raise the matter rather than allow the order to be drawn. It would be unsatisfactory to use an omission by a judge to deal with a point in a judgment as grounds for an application for appeal if the matter has not been brought to the judge’s attention when there was a ready opportunity so to do. Unnecessary costs and delay may result. I should make it clear that there are general observations for assistance in future cases, and that I make no criticisms of counsel in this case’.
In our opinion it is certainly good practice where parties are legally represented in Employment Tribunals, for advocates to ask the Tribunal to amplify its reasoning where it is considered that there has been a material omission in its findings of fact or in its consideration of the issues of fact and law before it. Where reasons are given extempore the application should be made at the time. If reasons are given in writing the request should be made as soon as possible after the reasons are received. We would encourage advocates to seek clarification from the ET promptly in any case where there might otherwise be an appeal based on alleged insufficiency of reasons. It is much easier for Tribunals to deal with requests for clarification when they are fresh in their minds and the amplification of insufficient reasons and finding will save the parties time and expense and may in some cases obviate the need for an appeal and subsequent remission of the case.

The approach we have set out above is wholly consistent with the overriding objective and the principles that should govern appeals before the EAT.’

Judges:

Serota QC J

Citations:

UKEAT/652/03, [2004] UKEAT 0652 – 03 – 1003, [2007] ICR 308

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – English v Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd; etc, (Practice Note) CA 30-Apr-2002
Judge’s Reasons Must Show How Reached
In each case appeals were made, following Flannery, complaining of a lack of reasons given by the judge for his decision.
Held: Human Rights jurisprudence required judges to put parties into a position where they could understand how the . .
Cited – Adebowale v Peninsula Business Services Ltd EAT 20-Jan-2003
Burton J P said that the CA had ‘expressly encouraged Courts considering whether an appeal should proceed on grounds of alleged failure to make findings, or alleged absence of reasons, to consider referring the case back to the lower Court for . .
Cited – In re T (A Child: contact) CA 24-Oct-2002
The court considered an appeal in care proceedings, where it was felt that the judge’s reasons for his findings were inadequately set out. Arden LJ pointed out that the principles in Emery Reimbold applied also in care proceedings, and set out . .

Cited by:

Cited – Royle v Greater Manchester Police Authority EAT 27-Sep-2006
The claimant appealed dismissal of her claim for constructive dismissal. The tribunal had decided that she had waived and could not rely upon several matters placed before it.
Held: ‘(1) Where the appeal is based on alleged failure by the . .
Cited – Afolayan v MRCS Ltd EAT 23-Aug-2011
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL
Where an Employment Tribunal has been directed by the Employment Appeal Tribunal and by a Regional Employment Judge, to consider an application for costs of a hearing before a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.194886

Anglia Home Improvement Ltd v Kelly: EAT 30 Dec 2003

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reasonableness of dismissal
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reasonableness of dismissal.

Judges:

His Hon Judge Prophet

Citations:

UKEAT/721/03, [2003] UKEAT 0721 – 03 – 3012

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Anglia Home Improvement Ltd v C Kelly CA 16-Jun-2004
The tribunal had found the claimant to have been unfairly dismissed, with the chairman dissenting.
Held: It was most desirable that tribunals should do their very best to reach a unanimous verdict in unfair dismissal cases. Where unanimity . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.194667

Walker v Barnes: EAT 17 Feb 2004

EAT Practice and Procedure – Perversity
EAT Practice and Procedure – Perversity.

Judges:

His Hon Judge J R Reid QC

Citations:

UKEAT/529/03, [2004] UKEAT 0529 – 03 – 0803

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Walker v Barnes CA 19-Oct-2004
. .
Appeal from – Walker v Barnes CA 26-May-2004
Request for permission to appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.194660

Sally Harper v Virgin Net Limited: CA 10 Mar 2004

The employee had been dismissed. Her contractual notice period was longer than the statutory period.
Held: The statutory notice period prevailed in calculating the date of dismissal. The contractual period could not be used to extend the total period of employment to allow a claim for loss of the right to claim unfair dismissal. Had Parliament desired the result contended it would have made provision accordingly. The right not to be unfairly dismissed is a statutory creation.

Judges:

Lord Justice Brooke Lord Justice Chadwick Baker, Lord Justice Scott Baker

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 271, Times 16-Mar-2004, Gazette 08-Apr-2004

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 – Brindle v Smith CA 1972
A question arose as to the position of an employee wrongfully dismissed just before the end of his first 104 weeks of service where he would have qualified to have a right not to be unfairly dismissed if he had been given proper notice.
Held: . .
Cited – Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances CA 1973
The claimant sought to bring his claim under a provision which required a complaint to the industrial tribunal to be made within four weeks of the dismissal unless the employment tribunal was satisfied that this was not ‘practicable’. He did not . .
Cited – Stapp v The Shaftesbury Society CA 1982
The employer had told the claimant: ‘I must ask you to relinquish your duties with effect from today 7 February 1981’ and thereby summarily dismissed him.
Held: The employer was clearly summarily dismissing with immediate effect in a wholly . .
Cited – Robert Court and Son Ltd v Charman EAT 1981
The EAT considered the effect of the statutory period of notice: ‘As a result, in our view Mr Charman has no right to complain to the Industrial Tribunal of unfair dismissal. Even if, as one must, one treats the effective date of termination as . .
Appeal from – Virgin Net Limited v Sally Harper EAT 15-May-2003
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for dismissal . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Virgin Net Limited v Sally Harper EAT 15-May-2003
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for dismissal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Damages

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.194414

Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Ainsworth, Kilic, Stringer, Thwaites: EAT 4 Feb 2004

EAT Working Time Regulations – Holiday pay

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (P)

Citations:

[2004] UKEAT 0650 – 03 – 0402, UKEAT/650/03, UKEAT/745/03 UKEA

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Statutes:

Working Time Regulations 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Inland Revenue v Ainsworth and others CA 22-Apr-2005
The court considered the calculation of hours under the Regulations when the employee was on extended sickness leave of absence.
Held: Once an employee had exhausted their sick pay entitlement, it was not open to them in addition then to claim . .
At EAT – Stringer and Others v Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs; Schultz-Hoff v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund ECJ 20-Jan-2009
(Grand Chamber) Several employees claimed that having been absent from work sick, they were entitled to carry forward their unused holiday entitlements, or if a former worker, to pay in lieu under the Working Time directive.
Held: The workers . .
At EAT – Revenue and Customs v Stringer, Ainsworth and Others HL 10-Jun-2009
In each case, the employee had retired after long term sickness. The Employment tribunal had upheld their ability to claim arrears of sickness pay arising under the 1998 Regulations, as an unlawful deduction from their wages. They now appealed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.194194

Collins v Royal National Theatre Board Limited: CA 17 Feb 2004

Can an employer’s failure to make adjustments to accommodate a disabled employee be unreasonable but justified?
Held: The justification under 5(2)(b) must be something other than the circumstances which are taken into account for the purpose of section 6(1): ‘The clear purpose of s.5(5) is to deny to an employer who has treated a disabled employee less favourably than others any defence of justification which depends directly or indirectly on a breach by the employer of his s.6 duty to make adjustments.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Sedley Lord Justice Brooke Lord Justice Latham

Citations:

[2004] 2 All ER 851, [2004] EWCA Civ 144

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995 4 5(2)(b) 6(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Royal National Theatre Board Ltd v Collins EAT 29-Apr-2003
Appeal against finding of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Archibald v Fife Council HL 1-Jul-2004
The claimant was employed as a street sweeper. She suffered injury to her health making it difficult to do her work. She was dismissed, and claimed that being disabled, the employer had not made reasonable adjustments to find alternative work for . .
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 . .
Cited – K v The School and the Special Needs and Disability Tribunal CA 6-Mar-2007
The child was subject to the school eventually declined to clean and change him. The mother claimed that the school was discriminating.
Held: The mother had understated the frequency of the bowel accidents. The school was not properly equipped . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.193584

Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Lennon: CA 20 Feb 2004

The claimant police officer considered being transferred to Northern Ireland. He asked and was incorrectly told that his housing allowance would not be affected by taking time off work.
Held: The break between employments had affected his entitlements. The finding of a duty of care and its breach involved no new extension of the law. The officer had assumed responsibility to the claimant for the advice, and was responsible and had access to special knowledge. The relationship between the claimant and respondent was not that of employer and employee, but for these purposes was sufficiently close.

Judges:

Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Ward Lord Justice Rix

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 130, Times 25-Feb-2004, Gazette 18-Mar-2004, [2004] 2 All ER 266

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Hedley Byrne and Co Ltd v Heller and Partners Ltd HL 28-May-1963
Banker’s Liability for Negligent Reference
The appellants were advertising agents. They were liable themselves for advertising space taken for a client, and had sought a financial reference from the defendant bankers to the client. The reference was negligent, but the bankers denied any . .
Cited – Midland Bank Trust Co Ltd v Hett Stubbs and Kemp (a firm) ChD 1978
A solicitor had failed to register an option as a land charge over property. The court was asked what steps should have been taken by a solicitor in the conduct of a claim: ‘Mr Harman [leading counsel for the plaintiff] sought to rely upon the fact . .
Cited – Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman and others HL 8-Feb-1990
Limitation of Loss from Negligent Mis-statement
The plaintiffs sought damages from accountants for negligence. They had acquired shares in a target company and, relying upon the published and audited accounts which overstated the company’s earnings, they purchased further shares.
Held: The . .
Cited – Scally v Southern Health and Social Services Board HL 1991
The plaintiffs were junior doctors employed by the respondents. Their terms had been collectively negotiated, and incorporated the Regulations. During the period of their employment different regulations had given and then taken way their right to . .
Cited – Spring v Guardian Assurance Plc and Others HL 7-Jul-1994
The plaintiff, who worked in financial services, complained of the terms of the reference given by his former employer. Having spoken of his behaviour towards members of the team, it went on: ‘his former superior has further stated he is a man of . .
Cited – White and Another v Jones and Another HL 16-Feb-1995
Will Drafter liable in Negligence to Beneficiary
A solicitor drawing a will may be liable in negligence to a potential beneficiary, having unduly delayed in the drawing of the will. The Hedley Byrne principle was ‘founded upon an assumption of responsibility.’ Obligations may occasionally arise . .
Cited – Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd HL 25-Jul-1994
Lloyds Agents Owe Care Duty to Member; no Contract
Managing agents conducted the financial affairs of the Lloyds Names belonging to the syndicates under their charge. It was alleged that they managed these affairs with a lack of due careleading to enormous losses.
Held: The assumption of . .
Cited – Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Limited (In Liquidation); BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg) SA (In Liquidation); Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA (In Liquidation) v Price Waterhouse CA 13-Feb-1998
The special relationship between an auditor and a bank, meant that a duty of care could extend even to a second bank with its own auditors. In determining whether there had been an assumption of responsibility, the the relevant factors would include . .
Cited – Newall v Ministry of Defence 2002
. .
Cited – Outram v Academy Plastics Ltd CA 19-Apr-2000
An employer, who also operated as trustee of the company’s pension scheme, has no duty in negligence to give advice to scheme members as to how they should conduct their own membership of the scheme. No such obligation arises from the contractual . .
Cited – Gorham and others v British Telecommunications Limited Plc, the Trustees of the BT Pension Scheme Standard Life Assurance Company S/S CA 27-Jul-2000
Where an insurance company gave financial advice to a person to whom they owed a duty of care, and they were aware that that person was intending to provide for his dependants, then the insurance company owed the dependants a duty of care also. The . .

Cited by:

Cited – West Bromwich Albion Football Club Ltd v El-Safty QBD 14-Dec-2005
The claimant sought damages from the defendant surgeon alleging negligent care of a footballer. The defendant argued that he had no duty to the club as employer of his patient who was being treated through his BUPA membership. It would have created . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Negligence, Police, Negligence

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.193621

Virgo Fidelis Senior School v Kevin Boyle: EAT 11 Dec 2003

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason

Judges:

His Hon Judge Ansell

Citations:

UKEAT/644/03, [2004] UKEAT 0644 – 03 – 2301

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Cited by:

Cited – Fecitt and Others v NHS Manchester EAT 23-Nov-2010
EAT VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Protected disclosure
S.47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 provides that ‘A worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.193453

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 transferred had to be a discrete entity.

Judges:

Lord Justice May Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Pill

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 83, Times 26-Feb-2004, [2004] IRLR 304

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – 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 – Allen and Others v Amalgamated Construction Co Ltd ECJ 10-Dec-1999
The European rules protecting employees rights on the transfer of undertakings operated also when employees when employees were transferred between two separate companies which were subsidiaries of another. They were legally distinct employers, even . .
Cited – Hidalgo and Others v Asociacion de Servicios Aser and Sociedad Cooperativa Minerva; Horst Ziemann v Ziemann Sicherheit GmbH and Horst Bohn Sicherheitsdienst ECJ 10-Dec-1998
Europa Article 1(1) of Directive 77/187 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of . .
Cited – Francisco Hernandez Vidal SA v Perez, and Contratas y Limpiezas SL; Gomez Montana v Claro Sol SA and Red Nacional de Ferrocarriles Espanoles (Renfe) ECJ 10-Dec-1998
Europa Article 1(1) of Directive 77/187 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of . .
Cited – RCO Support Services Ltd, Aintree Hospital Trust v Unison v Binns L Mckinlay EAT 28-Jun-2000
EAT Transfer of Undertakings – Transfer. . .
Cited – Hassard v Mc Grath and Others CANI 1996
Before the alleged transfer, the undertaking of general building work operations, was carried on by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive through its Direct Labour Organisation then divided into four districts. The employee worked in two units then . .
Cited – Cheeseman v R Brewer Contracts Ltd EAT 2001
. .
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 by:

Mentioned – Astle and others v Cheshire County Council and Omnisure Property Management Ltd EAT 20-May-2004
EAT Issue whether Employment Tribunal asked itself the right question and/or was perverse in failing to find that the principal reason for the Council’s changed arrangements was to thwart TUPE and hence that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.193484

Red Bank Manufacturing Co Ltd v Meadows: EAT 1992

A party wishing to complain about a member of the employment tribunal should make his complaint to that tribunal rather than at the EAT. The Polkey principle must be considered by the Tribunal in assessing compensation for unfair dismissal even though it was not raised by the parties before them.

Judges:

Tucker J

Citations:

[1992] ICR 204, [1991] UKEAT 125 – 90 – 1411, [1991] UKEAT 567 – 90 – 1411, [1992] IRLR 209

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Whitehart v Raymond Thomson Ltd EAT 11-Sep-1984
A member of the tribunal was said to have dozed off once if not twice during the hearing. Popplewell J said: ‘It is axiomatic that all members of a tribunal must hear all the evidence and to have a trial in which one member of the tribunal is asleep . .
Mentioned – British Labour Pump Co Ltd v Byrne EAT 1979
The respondent had been dismissed for misconduct on the morning of the day on which he was dismissed. There had been previous misbehaviour but the industrial tribunal held that the case had to be determined on the basis of what had happened on that . .

Cited by:

Not followed – Stansbury v Datapulse Plc and Another CA 15-Dec-2003
In the course of a hearing in the Employment Tribunal, it appeared to one party that a member of the tribunal was drunk and fell asleep.
Held: Two questions arose. First whether that tribunal should deal with a complaint about a member of the . .
Cited – Swallow Security Services Ltd v Millicent EAT 19-Mar-2009
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL: Contributory fault
The employers dismissed the employee after a bogus redundancy exercise, after she had knowingly taken paid holiday in excess of her holiday allowance and failed to . .
Cited – Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust v Roldan CA 13-May-2010
The employee appealed against the reversal by the EAT of her successful claim for unfair dismissal. She had been dismissed for alleged gross misconduct in disrespectful treatment of a patient. She said that investigation had been procedurally . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.193401

Thompson v Age Concern: EAT 9 Jan 2004

EAT Practice and Procedure – Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity

Judges:

His Hon Judge Mcmullen QC

Citations:

[2004] UKEAT 0728 – 03 – 0202, UKEAT/728/03

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Tuntum Housing Association v Aryeetey EAT 12-Oct-2007
EAT Time Limits – Reasonably practicability
Practice and Procedure – Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity
Chairman’s mistake as to necessity for further claim following Claimant’s solicitors . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.192664

Foster v Eastbourne Borough Council and Another: CA 3 Feb 2004

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 36

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Local Government (Early Termination of Employment) (Discretionary Compensation) (England and Wales) Regulations 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Eastbourne Borough Council v James Foster CA 11-Jul-2001
An employee’s job ceased, but he continued to be employed by the same employer on different tasks, but the new arrangement was void as ultra vires. The question arose as to whether his employment had been terminated at the time of the change in such . .
Appeal from – Eastbourne Borough Council v Foster EAT 8-Jul-2003
EAT Redundancy – Protective award . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Local Government

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.192681

Lane Group Plc, North Somerset Council v Farmiloe: EAT 24 Nov 2003

EAT Disability Discrimination – Reasonable adjustments
EAT Disability Discrimination – Reasonable adjustments.

Judges:

His Hon Judge Clark

Citations:

[2004] UKEAT 0352 – 03 – 2201, UKEAT/352/03, UKEAT/357/03

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.192671

ICTS (UK) Ltd v Visram: EAT 27 Mar 2019

CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Implied term/variation/construction of term
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Compensation
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Loss/mitigation
The Respondent appealed the decision of an Employment Tribunal on remedy for disability related discrimination and unfair dismissal that the Claimant should be awarded compensation for loss of long term disability benefits until retirement age or earlier death as the other terminating provision ‘return to work’ meant return to the job he was performing when he went sick and the evidence was that he would never again be able to perform those duties. The Employment Tribunal did not err in their construction of ‘return to work’ or in doing so in taking into account the terms of the Insurance Policy which was referred to in the incorporated Employee Booklet on such benefits as being provided by such a policy. Jowitt v Pioneer Technology (UK) Ltd [2003] IRLR 356 considered. Appeal of the Respondent dismissed.
The Employment Tribunal erred by failing to make an award for injury to feelings or by failing to give adequate reasons for not doing so. Appeal by the Claimant allowed.
Claim remitted to the Employment Tribunal for determining compensation for loss of long term and associated benefits and the issue of mitigation. Claim for aggravated damages also remitted for determination.

Citations:

[2019] UKEAT 0133 – 18 – 2703

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination, Damages

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.635155

Anslow v Cannock Chase Colliery Co Ltd: HL 17 May 1909

A workman was totally incapacitated by accident. During all the preceding year he had been employed by respondent company in the same grade of work. During this time there were 16 weeks when work was impossible through public holidays or stoppage of work. Out of the 36 working weeks the workman had been off work for 3 from sickness and private holiday. His total wages for the year earned in the 33 remaining weeks were pounds 68.
Held that stoppage of work and public holidays were normal incidents of the employment, and that therefore the workman’s average weekly earnings, in terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906 (6 Edw. VII, c. 58), Sched. I, secs. 1, 2, were 36/52nd parts of the workman’s weekly earnings during the 33 weeks he had actually worked, i.e., 36/52nds of a 33rd part of pounds 68.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lords Ashbourne, Gorel, and Shaw

Citations:

[1909] UKHL 1043 – 1, 46 SLR 1043 – 1

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.620578

Matheson v Mazars Solutions Ltd: EAT 16 Dec 2003

EAT Practice and Procedure – Application. The application had been presented timeously at the ET in Edinburgh, but was out of time when retransmitted to Glasgow. The tribunal had found the Edinburgh office to be an area office, and not a regional office and therefore the application was not accepted within the Regulations. The appellant argued that the Rules were unclear since Scotland had only one Region. He also argued that the interpretation infringed his Article 6 rights.
Held: The appeal failed. The Tribunal came to a conclusion that correctly interpreted the legislation against the background of the admitted facts. And ‘The place where the application is to be made is not the manner in which it is to be made but is a mandatory, in our opinion, direction rather then merely a directory provision.
On this simple basis we do not consider that the legislation is incompatible as we construe it with the Convention. If the issue of disproportionality does arise in this context we consider that the avoidance of administrative chaos that would result from applicants being able to pick which office of the Tribunal system in Scotland they were going to make their application is a legitimate aim which is not disproportionate to the interpretation that we have put upon the provision.’

Judges:

The Honourable Lord Johnston

Citations:

EATS/0048/03, [2003] UKEAT 0048 – 03 – 1612

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Statutes:

Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2001, European Convention on Human Rights 6

Citing:

Cited – Perez De Rada Cavanilles v Spain ECHR 28-Oct-1998
ECHR Inadmissibility, for being out of time, of reposicion application against court decision whereby a settlement agreement which the applicant had sought to enforce had been declared void
In a dispute . .
Cited – Stubbings and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 22-Oct-1996
There was no human rights breach where the victims of sex abuse had been refused a right to sue for damages out of time. The question is whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment in law: . .
Cited – Petch v Gurney (Inspector of Taxes) CA 8-Jun-1994
The thirty day time limit for the forwarding of a case stated is mandatory. The Court of Appeal has no discretion to extend the time limit. Millett LJ analysed the position by reference to the traditional dichotomy of directory or mandatory . .
Cited – John E Melville v Brown Brothers and Co Ltd EAT 8-Jun-1999
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason. . .
Cited – Regina v A (Complainant’s Sexual History) (No 2) HL 17-May-2001
The fact of previous consensual sex between complainant and defendant could be relevant in a trial of rape, and a refusal to allow such evidence could amount to a denial of a fair trial to a defendant. Accordingly, where the evidence was so relevant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Human Rights

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.192121

Laing Limited v Yassin Essa: CA 21 Jan 2004

The claimant had been awarded damages for race discrimination. The employer appealed.
Held: In a claim for damages under the 1976 Act, it was not necessary to show that the damage suffered was reasonably forseeable.
Pill LJ said: ‘I see no need to superimpose the requirement or prerequisite of reasonable foreseeability upon the statutory tort in order to achieve the balance of interests which the law of tort requires. It is sufficient if the damage flows directly and naturally from the wrong. While there is force in the submission that, to prevent multiplicity of claims and frivolous claims, a control mechanism beyond that of causation is needed, reliance upon the good sense of employment tribunals in finding the facts and reaching conclusions on them is a sufficient control mechanism, in my view. As a mechanism for protecting a defendant against damages which, on policy grounds, may appear too remote, a further control by way of a reasonable foreseeability test is neither appropriate nor necessary in present circumstances.’
Clarke LJ said: ‘In all the circumstances we agree with Pill LJ that there is no need to add a further requirement of reasonable foreseeability and that the robust good sense of employment tribunals can be relied upon to ensure that compensation is awarded only where there really is a causal link between the act of discrimination and the injury alleged. No such compensation will of course be payable where there has been a break in the chain of causation or where the claimant has failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate his loss.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Clarke Lord Justice Rix Lord Justice Pill

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 2, Times 29-Jan-2004, [2004] IRLR 313, [2004] ICR 746

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Race Relations Act 1976

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Chagger v Abbey National Plc and Another CA 13-Nov-2009
The claimant appealed against the limitation of 2% placed on the uplift of his award of damages for having failed to comply with relevant dispute procedures. The tribunal had found exceptional reasons for reducing the uplift given the size of the . .
Cited – Jones and Another v Ruth and Another CA 12-Jul-2011
The parties were neighbours. The claimants succeeded in their assertion of trespass and nuisance in building works carried out by the defendant. The claimant appealed against the judge’s failure to award damages for harassment, saying that though . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination, Damages

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.192055

Kent County Council v Green: CA 23 Jan 2004

The applicant had been a head teacher. She claimed unfair dismissal. The respondents claimed that they were not her employers. The school was a community school.
Held: The governors should have been the correct respondents. They held the powers consistent with the power to dismiss. A constructive dismissal claim should not be treated differently on an issue of jurisdiction.

Judges:

Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice May Lord Justice Pill

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 11

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

School Standards and Framework Act 1988, Education (Modification of Enactments Relating to Employment) Order 1999, Education (Modification of Enactments Relating to Employment) (England) Order 2003, Employment Rights Act 1996 95(1)(c)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp CA 1978
To succeed in a claim for constructive dismissal the plaintiff must establish a breach of contract by the defendant, that the breach was sufficiently serious to have justified the claimant resigning, or at least be the last in a series of events . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.192104

British Nursing Association v Inland Revenue (National Minimum Wage Compliance Team): CA 2002

The employers provided ‘bank nurses’ for nursing homes and other institutions on an emergency basis, including a 24 hour telephone booking service. At night employees were based at home. The ‘duty nurse’ would answered a diverted phone call and then respond. The employee was paid an amount per shift. The Minimum Wage Compliance Team thought those employed on the night shift should be paid the minimum hourly rate for each duty hour. The employers responded that they did not work throughout the shift. Those employed on the night shift did ‘time work’ and the Employment Tribunal held that they were engaged in ‘time work’ both when they were awake and awaiting calls at home. The employees were ‘working’ for the whole of their shift answering the clients’ telephone calls. The Tribunal saw no difference between the day workers and the night workers except that the night workers worked from home. The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. Both tribunals could find that the workers were working throughout their shift. As an issue of ordinary use of language it was self evident on the facts as found that they were indeed working throughout the night. ‘No one would say that an employee sitting at the employer’s premises during the day waiting for phone calls was only working, in the sense of only being entitled to be remunerated, during the periods when he or she was actually on the phone. Exactly the same consideration seems to me to apply if the employer chooses to operate the very same service during the night-time, not by bringing the employees into his office (which would no doubt impose substantial overhead costs on the employer and lead to significant difficulties of recruitment), but by diverting calls from the central switchboard to employees sitting waiting at home. It was indeed as a continuation of the day-time service that the employer presented the night-time service to his employees and recruited them for that purpose. That is illustrated by the job description document that was shown to us . . ‘
Buxton LJ said: ‘I have to say that not only was it open to the Employment Tribunal and to the Employment Appeal Tribunal to find that the workers were working throughout their shift, that also, as an issue of the ordinary use of the English language, it seems to me self-evident on these facts that they were indeed so working. No one would say that an employee sitting at the employer’s premises during the day waiting for phone calls was only working, in the sense of only being entitled to be remunerated, during the periods when he or she was actually on the phone. Exactly the same consideration seems to me to apply if the employer chooses to operate the very same service during the night-time, not by bringing the employees into his office (which would no doubt impose substantial overhead costs on the employer and lead to significant difficulties of recruitment), but by diverting calls from the central switch board to employees sitting waiting at home . . . That in the event there may during the middle period of the night be few calls to field is nothing to the point. It is for the employer to decide whether it is economic and necessary to his business to make the facility available on a 24-hour basis. If he does so decide, it is the availability of the facility, not its actual use, that is important to him; and that is what he achieves by the working arrangements described in this case’.

Judges:

Buxton LJ, Sir Peter Gibson, Neuberger J

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 494, [2003] ICR 19, [2002] IRLR 480, [2002] Emp LR 668

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 15

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – The British Nursing Assocation v The Inland Revenue National Minimum Wage Compliance Team EAT 8-Jun-2001
The applicants appealed a finding that their employees were workers within the regulations. The question related to whether bank nurses, who were available to be called on the telephone at home during the night, were working as they waited. The . .

Cited by:

Cited – Walton v The Independent Living Organisation CA 26-Feb-2003
The worker was employed as a carer for a lady who would need support at unpredictable times, but on average she would need some 6 hours’ care a day. Whilst at work, the claimant would stay with her patient for a full 24 hour day, but, except when . .
Cited – Scottbridge Construction Ltd v James Wright OHCS 25-Oct-2002
The claimant worked as a night watchman, on 7 nights a week between 5pm and 7am. His principal purpose was to be available there to respond if an alarm was set off by an intruder. When not performing a specific task, he could do whatever he wanted. . .
Cited – MacCartney v Oversley House Management EAT 31-Jan-2006
EAT The Tribunal erred in law in holding that the Appellant had received the rest breaks to which she was entitled under reg 12 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. Gallagher v Alpha Catering Services Ltd [2005] . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.191967

Serco Ltd v Lawson and Foreign and Commonwealth Office: CA 23 Jan 2004

The applicant had been employed to provide services to RAF in the Ascension Islands. He alleged constructive dismissal. There was an issue as to whether somebody working in the Ascension Islands was protected by the 1996 Act. The restriction on jurisdiction in s196 had been removed. The question now was as to what test applied in its stead. Some limitation must be implied. The test is as to employment in Great Britain.
Held: A principle of statutory interpretation is that ‘an enactment applies to all persons and matters within the territory to which it extends, but not to any other persons or matters’ Some provisions of the Act explicitly extended jurisdiction to employments abroad, which implied that other provisions did not so extend. It was claimed that the Directice was intended to protect workers posted abroad, but that was complied with by the repeal of s196. It was wrong to try to revert to the ‘base test’ in Todd, since this was part of the background leading to s196. The tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The applicant was not employed in Great Britain.

Judges:

Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice May Lord Justice Pill

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 12, Times 30-Jan-2004, [2004] ICR 204

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996, Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2001, Directive 96/71/EC

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Lawson v Serco Ltd EAT 12-Dec-2002
EAT Jurisdiction . .
Cited – Carver (Nee Mascarenhas) v Saudi Arabian Airlines CA 17-Mar-1999
The applicant was recruited in Saudi Arabia in 1986 as a flight attendant under a contract expressed to be subject to Saudi Arabian law. After being trained in Jeddah, and then employed in India for four years, she was transferred to be based in . .
Cited – Tomalin v S Pearson and Son Ltd CA 1909
A widow claimed compensation for her husband’s death overseas.
Held: The Act did not provide for compensation to be payable. ‘What is the widow’s claim here ? She is claiming, not as a party to the contract, not as claiming any rights under a . .
Cited – Clark (Inspector of Taxes) v Oceanic Contractors Inc HL 16-Dec-1982
HL Income tax, Schedule E – Non-resident employer – Employees working in U.K. sector of North Sea – Whether employer liable to deduct tax from emoluments – Income Tax (Employments) Regulations 1973 – Income and . .
Cited – Jackson v Ghost Ltd and Another EAT 2-Sep-2003
The EAT rejected jurisdiction over a claim for unfair dismissal. The employment must have ‘a sufficient, that is substantial connection with this country’. . .
Cited – Financial Times Ltd v Bishop EAT 25-Nov-2003
The Tribunal considered the applicability of the 1996 Act to those employed abroad after the repeal of s196: ‘In our view the repeal of section 196 (2) cannot be taken to have had the effect that employees who had or whose employment had a . .
Cited – Todd v British Midland Airways CA 2-Jan-1978
The court discussed the test to be applied to an employment to see whether a British court had jurisdiction over it: ‘But in other cases there is more difficulty. I refer particularly to the type of case we have here of the airline pilot. He is . .
Appeal from – Lawson v Serco Ltd EAT 11-Mar-2003
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Crofts and others v Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd and others CA 19-May-2005
The claimants were airline pilots employed by the respondent company with headquarters in Hong Kong. The court was asked whether an English Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear their complaints of unfair dismissal.
Held: The pilots were employed . .
Appeal from – Serco Ltd v Lawson; Botham v Ministry of Defence; Crofts and others v Veta Limited HL 26-Jan-2006
Mr Lawson was employed by Serco as a security supervisor at the British RAF base on Ascension Island, which is a dependency of the British Overseas Territory of St Helena. Mr Botham was employed as a youth worker at various Ministry of Defence . .
Cited – Regina (on the Application of Mazin Mumaa Galteh Al-Skeini and Others) v The Secretary of State for Defence CA 21-Dec-2005
The claimants were dependants of Iraqi nationals killed in Iraq.
Held: The Military Police were operating when Britain was an occupying power. The question in each case was whether the Human Rights Act applied to the acts of the defendant. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, European

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.192100

Glen Dimplex UK Ltd v Burrows: EAT 6 Oct 2003

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Compensation

Citations:

EAT/265/03, [2003] EAT 0265 – 03 – 0610, [2003] UKEAT 0265 – 03 – 0610

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Glen Dimplex UK Ltd v G Burrows EAT 11-Jul-2003
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Compensation. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.191869

Deman v University of Bradford and others: EAT 5 Nov 2003

EAT Race Discrimination – Direct

Judges:

His Hon Judge Birtles QC

Citations:

[2003] UKEAT 0572 – 03 – 0511, UKEAT/572/03

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Citing:

See Also – Deman v University of Bradford and Another EAT 6-Dec-2002
. .
See Also – Deman v University of Bradford and Another EAT 15-Aug-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.191909

V v Addey and Stanhope School and others: EAT 25 Nov 2003

EAT Race Discrimination – Detriment

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (P)

Citations:

UKEAT/565/03/RN, [2003] EAT 0565 – 03 – 2511, [2003] UKEAT 0565 – 03 – 2511

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See also – The Governing Body of Addey and Stanhope School v V EAT 15-Aug-2002
EAT Race Discrimination – Victimisation . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.191934

Deman v Association of University Teachers: EAT 7 Oct 2003

Citations:

[2003] EAT 0142 – 03 – 0710, [2003] UKEAT 0142 – 03 – 0710

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Citing:

See Also – Deman v The Association of University Teachers and Others EAT 2-Jul-2003
EAT Practice and Procedure – Estoppel
EAT Practice and Procedure – Estoppel or Abuse of Process. . .
See Also – 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 by:

See Also – Deman v The Association of University Teachers and Others EAT 2-Jul-2003
EAT Practice and Procedure – Estoppel
EAT Practice and Procedure – Estoppel or Abuse of Process. . .
See Also – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.191865

Deman v The Association of University Teachers and Others: EAT 2 Jul 2003

EAT Practice and Procedure – Estoppel
EAT Practice and Procedure – Estoppel or Abuse of Process.

Judges:

Mr Recorder Luba QC

Citations:

[2003] EAT 0266 – 03 – 0207, [2003] UKEAT 0266 – 03 – 0207, EAT/142/03, EAT/266/03

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, EAT

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 – Dr Anya v University of Oxford and Another CA 22-Mar-2001
Discrimination – History of interactions relevant
When a tribunal considered whether the motive for an act was discriminatory, it should look not just at the act, but should make allowance for earlier acts which might throw more light on the act in question. The Tribunal should assess the totality . .
See Also – Deman v Association of University Teachers EAT 7-Oct-2003
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Deman v Association of University Teachers EAT 7-Oct-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.191706

Her Majesty’s Attorney General v Tyrrell: EAT 4 Jun 2003

Application for restriction of proceedings order – Practice and Procedure – Split hearings

Judges:

Burton J P

Citations:

[2003] EAT 0236 – 03 – 0406, [2003] UKEAT 0236 – 03 – 0406, EAT/236/03

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Tyrrell v Transport and General Workers Union EAT 1-Oct-1998
. .
See Also – Tyrrel v Transport and General Workers Union EAT 31-Mar-2000
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.191646

Deman v University of Bradford and Another: EAT 15 Aug 2003

Citations:

[2003] EAT 0597 – 02 – 1508, [2003] UKEAT 0597 – 02 – 1508

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Citing:

See Also – Deman v University of Bradford and Another EAT 6-Dec-2002
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Deman v University of Bradford and others EAT 5-Nov-2003
EAT Race Discrimination – Direct . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.191760

Rai v Somerfield Stores: EAT 12 May 2003

EAT Time Limits – Effective date of termination.

Judges:

His Hon Judge J Burke QC

Citations:

[2003] EAT 0557 – 02 – 1205, [2003] UKEAT 0557 – 02 – 1205, EAT/557/02

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, EAT

Cited by:

Distinguished – The Governing Body of Wishmorecross School v Balado EAT 12-Jul-2011
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Claim in time and effective date of termination
Claimant given notice of dismissal subject to a right of appeal and on the basis that the employment would not terminate if she . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.191603

Apelogun-Gabriels v London Borough of Lambeth and Another (No 2): EAT 16 Jul 2003

EAT Practice and Procedure – Estoppel or Abuse of Process.

Judges:

His Hon Judge Clark

Citations:

[2003] EAT 1108 – 02 – 1607, [2003] UKEAT 1108 – 02 – 1607, EAT/1102/02

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Apelogun-Gabriels v London Borough of Lambeth and Another EAT 15-Jan-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.191690

Jones v Barton Court Grammar School: EAT 27 May 2003

The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for unfair dismissal after his dismissal from his teaching point on the ground of permanent incapacity. The parties disputed the effect of the National Scheme of Conditions of Service for Schoolteachers in England and Wales (the ‘Burgundy Book’).

Judges:

Commissioner Howell QC

Citations:

[2003] UKEAT 0920 – 02 – 2705

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.191582

Foster v Somerset County Council: EAT 8 May 2003

leave to appeal

Citations:

[2003] EAT 1523 – 02 – 0805, [2003] UKEAT 1523 – 02 – 0805

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.191570

Von-Goetz v South Thames Department of Post Graduate Medical and Dental Education: EAT 30 Apr 2003

EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Appeal Tribunal
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Appeal Tribunal.

Judges:

His Hon Judge Clark

Citations:

EAT/1415/01, [2003] UKEAT 1415 – 01 – 3004

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Von-Goetz v South Thames Department of Post Graduate Medical and Dental Education EAT 5-Nov-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.191541

Sule-Charles v Customs and Excise: EAT 3 Apr 2003

Citations:

[2003] UKEAT 1310 – 01 – 0304

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.191537