Category: Employment

Nwoke v London Borough of Brent: EAT 18 Jul 2003

EAT Time Limits – Just and equitable extension

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Wall

Citations:

EAT/1137/02, [2003] EAT 1137 – 02 – 1807, [2003] UKEAT 1137 – 02 – 1807

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, EATn

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.189552

Ballamoody v Nursing and Midwifery Council: EAT 4 Jun 2003

Citations:

[2003] EAT 0079 – 03 – 0406, [2003] UKEAT 0079 – 03 – 0406

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Balamoody v Manchester Health Authority EAT 12-Nov-2001
The Tribunal heard a preliminary application in a claim for unlawful race discrimination. Earlier applications had been struck out. This second set of applications had been struck out as frivolous by the Tribunal on the basis that they were not new . .
See Also – Balamoody v United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting CA 6-Dec-2001
The claimant had been struck from the register of nurses after convictions arising from failures of his staff at his nursing home with regard to drug management. He had then brought claims of unlawful race discrimination against the health authority . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.189469

Teruel-Fanning v Park View Rest Homes Ltd: EAT 9 May 2003

Judges:

Mr Recorder Hand QC

Citations:

[2003] EAT 638 – 02 – 0905, [2003] UKEAT 638 – 02 – 0905, EAT/638/02

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, EATn

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, Discrimination

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.189461

Yianni v Dr Barry Newport and Partners: EAT 9 May 2003

Citations:

[2003] EAT 1172 – 02 – 0905

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Yianni v Dr Barry Newport and Partners EAT 9-May-2003
. .
See Also – Y Yianni v Dr Barry Newport and Partners EAT 28-Jul-2003
. .
See Also – Yianni v Dr Barry Newport and Partners EAT 28-Jul-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.189465

Bolch v Chipman: EAT 19 May 2003

EAT The EAT considered the consequences, of a decision to strike out a Notice of Appearance under Rule 15(2)(d).
Held: The EAT will require an employment tribunal, among other things, to consider the proportionality of what it was doing. If a fair trial were not possible on liability, there could still be an order simply debarring the respondent from taking any further part on liability, but permitting that respondent to take part on the question of compensation.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (P)

Citations:

EAT/1149/02, EAT/1159/02, [2003] EAT 1149 – 02 – 1905, [2003] UKEAT 1149 – 02 – 1905, [2004] IRLR 140

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James CA 25-May-2006
The defendant company appealed against an order re-instating the claimants’ claims for damages for race discrimination and victimisation after they had been struck out for wilful disobedience of the tribunal’s orders.
Held: When making a . .
Cited – Tisson v Telewest Communications Group Ltd EAT 19-Feb-2008
The claimant’s claim had been struck out for his failure to comply with an order to serve a list of documents.
Held: The appeal failed. The principles applied under the Civil Procedure Rules should be applied in Employment Tribunals. The . .
Cited – Abegaze v Shrewsbury College of Arts and Technology CA 20-Feb-2009
In 2000 the claimant succeeded in his claim for discrimination, but had not pursued his remedy. He now appealed against a refusal to allow him to take it further. He had initially failed to pursue the matter for ill health. He later refused to . .
Cited – NSM Music Ltd v J H Leefe EAT 14-Dec-2005
EAT Practice and Procedure: Appearance/Response, Review and Appellate Jurisdiction/Burns-Barke
When a Respondent has been debarred from taking part in proceedings under ET Rule 9, he may request Reasons . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.189408

Mayo-Deman v Lewisham College: EAT 12 May 2003

Citations:

[2003] EAT 0104 – 02 – 1205, [2003] UKEAT 0104 – 02 – 1205

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Mayo-Deman v Lewisham College EAT 5-Nov-2003
EAT Race Discrimination – Direct . .
See Also – Mayo-Deman v Lewisham College EAT 8-Dec-2003
EAT Race Discrimination – Direct . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.189439

Bergolis v Norinchukin International Plc: EAT 13 May 2003

Citations:

[2003] EAT 0448 – 02 – 1305, [2003] UKEAT 0448 – 02 – 1305

Links:

Bailii, 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.189407

R F Brookes Ltd v Bachra: EAT 3 Apr 2003

Citations:

[2003] EAT 32 – 03 – 0304, [2003] UKEAT 32 – 03 – 0304

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Bachra v Brookes Ltd and Another EAT 13-Dec-2000
. .
Cited – J Sainsbury Ltd v Hitt; Orse Sainsburys Supermarkets Limited v Hitt CA 18-Oct-2002
Reasobaleness of Investigation Judged Objectively
The employer appealed against a decision that it had unfairly dismissed the respondent. The majority of the Employment Tribunal had decided that the employers had not carried out a reasonable investigation into the employee’s alleged misconduct . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.189388

Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd v Bhatia: EAT 27 Mar 2003

The respondent had been found to be unfairly dismissed. The appellants wished to appeal and sought disclosure of certain documents from the respondent’s solicitors. They now appealed against that refusal.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The chairman had failed to give adequate reasons for the refusal, and indeed the order should have been made. The papers were essential to the preparation of the company’s case, and the arrangement had left them unable to defend the calculation of the substantial claim.

Judges:

Keith J

Citations:

[2003] EAT 194 – 02 – 2703

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Buxton v Equinox Design Ltd EAT 19-Nov-1998
Where a tribunal had found unfair dismissal and was considering an award of damages for injury to feelings under the Disability Discrimination Act, it had to recognise the different needs of unlimited awards, and take great care in assessing factual . .
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 – De Keyser Limited v Wilson EAT 20-Mar-2001
The claimant appealed against an order striking out her claim.
Held: The right to respect for private life is qualified by the right for both parties to have a just trial of the issues between them; and it has to be borne in mind that it was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.189339

Anyanwu v London Borough of Hackney: EAT 15 Apr 2003

The claimant had been found to be subject to unlawful sex discrimination, but had had an award of nil damages. She appealed.

Judges:

Mitting J

Citations:

[2003] EAT 0295 – 02 – 1504, [2003] UKEAT 0295 – 02 – 1504

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination, Damages

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.189346

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 clarification’.

Judges:

Burton J P

Citations:

[2003] EAT 1135 – 02 – 2001

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 by:

Cited – Burns v Royal Mail Group Plc (No 2) (Formerly Consignia Plc), Humphrey EAT 14-Jan-2004
The hearing was an adjourned second hearing. The appeal on sex discrimination had been dismissed, and the balance of the claim for constructive unfair dismissal was adjourned. At that adjourned hearing the claimant now sought to re-open the claims . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.189195

Harada Ltd (T/A Chequepoint UK) v Turner: EAT 17 Mar 2003

Citations:

[2003] EAT 636 – 02 – 1703, [2003] UKEAT 636 – 02 – 1703

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Turner v Harada Ltd (T/A Chequepoint UK) EAT 23-Mar-1999
Appeal by Mr Turner against an Employment Tribunal’s order that his case on the merits be not heard until after the Employment Appeal Tribunal has heard and determined an appeal by his former employers, which they wish to make against a previous . .
See Also – Harada Ltd (T/A Chequepoint UK Ltd) v Turner EAT 15-Jul-1999
Appeal against finding that defendant was subject to the jurisdiction of the court. . .
See Also – Harada Ltd T/A Chequepoint UK Ltd v Turner EAT 2-Nov-1999
EAT Jurisdiction – . .
See Also – Harada Ltd v Turner CA 6-Apr-2001
The claimant had sought damages alleging unfair dismissal and unlawful deductions from his wages. The defendant argued that it was not subject to the jurisdiction of the court. During preliminary discussions, the judge hearing the application was . .
See Also – Harada Ltd (T/A Chequepoint Uk) v Turner EAT 25-Feb-2003
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.189310

UK Coal Mining Ltd v Raby: EAT 30 Jan 2003

EAT Two employees had fought at work. One had an expired formal written warning on his record. It had been reduced on appeal from a final warning. His disciplinary offence was of a different nature than the later misconduct. He was dismissed The procedure, modelled on the ACAS Code of Practice, provided that the formal written warning would be disregarded after one year. The other employee, with no disciplinary record, was not dismissed. The ET’s majority decision was that the dismissal was unfair. The two lay members held that there were no rational reasons for distinguishing the two cases. The employer should have disregarded the previous record of one of them. Both should have been given credit for an unblemished record. The Chairman of the ET disagreed, holding that the employer was entitled to have regard to the personal file on an indefinite basis. He drew a distinction between the use of the previous record as background and its purpose in ‘totting up’ and said that it would be standing logic on its head to say that the employee who was dismissed was a man of previous good character when there had been a past disciplinary offence, albeit of a different character.
Held: The appeal failed. The ET Chairman was incorrect in the light of the language of the Code and the disciplinary rules: ”Disregard’ must mean what it says and the scope of the formal warning is finite, being on the record for 12 months. In these circumstances the majority view that a reasonable employer should treat the two men equally is one which is entirely rational.’

Judges:

His Hon Judge Mcmullen QC

Citations:

[2003] EAT 1124 – 02 – 3001, [2003] UKEAT 1124 – 02 – 3001, EAT/1124/02

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, EATn

Statutes:

Employment Rights Ac 1996 98(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Airbus UK Ltd v MG Webb CA 7-Feb-2008
The court considered the dismissal by an employer of an employee for a disciplinary offence when he would not have been dismissed but for an earlier warning which had expired.
Held: The company’s appeal succeded. The court summarised the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.189227

Marsh v AIB Group (UK) Plc: EAT 24 Feb 2003

Appeal by the Mr Marsh, against the unanimous conclusion of the Employment Tribunal that his application for race discrimination against the Respondent was out of time – Effective date of termination.

Judges:

Burton P J

Citations:

[2003] EAT 0567 – 02 – 2402, [2003] UKEAT 0567 – 02 – 2402, EAT/567/02

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, EAT

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.189262

Kanapathiar v London Borough of Harrow: EAT 25 Feb 2003

EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Appeal Tribunal.

Citations:

[2003] EAT 1281 – 02 – 2502, [2003] UKEAT 1281 – 02 – 2502, PA/1281/02

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, EATn

Citing:

Cited – Mock v Inland Revenue EAT 1-Mar-1999
In the context of the time for appealing to the EAT under Rule 3(3) EAT Rules 1993, as amended, ‘sent’ referred to the date appearing on the ET ‘decision’.
Morison P said: ‘Industrial Tribunal chairmen are required to produce reasons. When . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.189254

Ebuzoeme v Anyanwu and others: EAT 20 Nov 2003

The Applicants had claimed against the Union that they were discriminated against on the grounds of race and had suffered victimisation and that the Union was in breach of contract. All of these claims were dismissed. The Applicants claimed that the University had knowingly aided acts of discrimination and victimisation by the Union; these complaints were dismissed.

Judges:

Serota QC J

Citations:

[2003] EAT 0279 – 03 – 2011

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188757

Von-Goetz v South Thames Department of Post Graduate Medical and Dental Education: EAT 5 Nov 2003

Citations:

[2003] EAT 1415 – 01 – 0511, [2003] UKEAT 1415 – 01 – 0511

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – 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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188770

Harada Limited (T/A Chequepoint) v Turner: CA 2 Dec 2003

Applications for leave to appeal. The claimant had alleged unfair dismissal. The respondent denied jurisdiction.

Judges:

Lord Justice Mance, Lord Justice Mummerym Lord Justice Simon Brown

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1695

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 196(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Cited by:

Cited – Winkler and Another v Shamoon and Others ChD 15-Feb-2016
The claimants sought a declaration as against the residuary beneficiaries (wife and daughter) under the will, saying that the claimants had a beneficial interest in company shares within the estate. The defendants fild acknowledgments of service but . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Jurisdiction

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188395

Sahota v Wolverhampton City Council 0415: EAT 15 Aug 2003

Two preliminary hearings in relation to a decision and a refusal to review of an Employment Tribunal which unanimously decided that the Applicant’s claim for racial discrimination was dismissed on the grounds of jurisdiction and specifically on the grounds that he was 19 days outside the three month period in presenting his complaint.

Judges:

Ansell HHJ

Citations:

[2003] EAT 0415 – 03 – 1508, [2003] UKEAT 0415 – 03 – 1508

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Sahota v Wolverhampton City Council EAT 8-Nov-2002
race discrimination and disability discrimination in recruitment. . .
Cited – Sahota v Wolverhampton City Council (0414) EAT 15-Aug-2003
Claimant’s application for leave to appeal from dismissal of claims for disability and race discrimination.
Held: rejected. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188338

Kraus v Penna Plc and Another: EAT 20 Nov 2003

The claimant said that his dismissal was automatically unfair on the basis that he had made a qualifying disclosure.
Held: ‘the worker’s reasonable belief in s.43B(1) relates to the information which he is disclosing and not to the existence of a legal obligation which does not actually exist. In other words if the employers are under no legal obligation, as a matter of law, a worker cannot claim the protection of this legislation by claiming that he reasonably believed that they were. His belief and the reasonableness of it in our view relates to the factual information in his possession, namely what he perceives to be the facts and the basis on which he considers it reasonable to rely upon them. This can only properly be tested against the background of the legal obligation, ‘to which [the employer or other person] is subject’. If there is no obligation to which they actually are subject the worker’s suggestion that he reasonably believed they were cannot render the disclosure a protected one within sections 43A and B. The tribunal’s failure to refer expressly to ‘reasonable belief’ on the facts of this case therefore does not in our view constitute an error of law. It simply did not arise for consideration in this case.’

Citations:

[2003] EAT 0360 – 03 – 2011, [2003] UKEAT 0360 – 03 – 2011, [2004] IRLR 260

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 47B

Cited by:

Cited – Babula v Waltham Forest College CA 21-Jul-2006
Renewed application for permission to appeal. . .
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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188345

Weir Valves and Controls (UK) Ltd v Armitage: EAT 15 Oct 2003

EAT Practice and Procedure – Case Management
In considering whether or not to strike out or impose some lesser remedy the guiding consideration was the overriding objective which required justice to be done between the parties and that in particular the Tribunal should consider the magnitude of the default, whether the default was the responsibility of the solicitor or the party, what disruption, unfairness or prejudice had been caused and whether a fair hearing was still possible.

Judges:

His Hon Judge Richardson

Citations:

[2003] EAT 0296 – 03 – 1510, EAT/296/03, UKEAT/296/03/MAA, [2003] UKEAT 0296 – 03 – 1510, [2004] ICR 371

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, EATn

Cited by:

Cited – Shah v Haden Building Management Ltd EAT 28-Sep-2005
The tribunal had served a pre-hearing notice on employment dispute consultants who had acted for the claimant, but who had reserved their position in correspondence with the employers, and had asked that any documents be served on the claimant . .
Cited – Tisson v Telewest Communications Group Ltd EAT 19-Feb-2008
The claimant’s claim had been struck out for his failure to comply with an order to serve a list of documents.
Held: The appeal failed. The principles applied under the Civil Procedure Rules should be applied in Employment Tribunals. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188366

Commerzbank Ag v Price-Jones: CA 21 Nov 2003

The respondent had received a bonus of andpound;250,000. His employers wrote to him in error increasing it. He later chose to stay rather than take redundancy because he now expected the full amount. He resisted an order for restitution. The employer appealed.
Held: The judge had not focussed sufficiently on the terms of the letter. ‘As the Bank mistakenly made an overpayment of andpound;250,000 to Mr Price-Jones on 15 December 2000 it is entitled to restitution of that sum, unless Mr Price-Jones can establish that his position so changed that it is inequitable in all the circumstances to require him to make full restitution to the Bank. ‘The defendant had to demonstrate a sufficient causal link, in this case between the offer and his not leaving the bank. However in this case there was no ‘disenrichment’ and no reason in equity for him not to make restitution. The appeal was allowed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Sedley Mr Justice Munby

Citations:

Times 26-Nov-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 1663

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Lipkin Gorman (a Firm) v Karpnale Ltd HL 6-Jun-1991
The plaintiff firm of solicitors sought to recover money which had been stolen from them by a partner, and then gambled away with the defendant. He had purchased their gaming chips, and the plaintiff argued that these, being gambling debts, were . .
Cited – Philip Collins Limited v Davis 2000
The court discussed the change of position needed to be established by a defendant resisting a claim for restitution of money paid under a mistake: The ‘change of position . . must, on the evidence, be referable in some way to the payment of [the] . .
Cited – Scottish Equitable v Derby 16-Mar-2001
The claimant company sought repayment of a sum paid in error to the defendant. She replied that she had changed her position as a result of and relying upon the payment.
Held: The court gave as ‘the most obvious example’ of the kind of . .
Cited – National Westminster Bank Plc v Somer International (Uk) Limited CA 22-Jun-2001
The bank by mistake credited andpound;76,000 to the Defendant’s account and erroneously later indicated that it had come from a customer of the Defendant, M; in reliance on that, the Defendant dispatched goods to the value of some andpound;13,000 to . .
Cited – Dextra Bank and Trust Company Limited v Bank of Jamaica PC 26-Nov-2001
(Jamaica) A cheque was drawn which was used as part a complex financial arrangement intended to purchase foreign currency to work around Jamaica’s foreign exchange control regulations. It was asserted that by presenting the cheque used in the . .
Cited – Niru Battery Manufacturing Company, Bank Sepah Iran v Milestone Trading Limited CA 23-Oct-2003
The claimant had contracted to purchase lead from some of the defendants. There were delays in payment but when funds were made available they should have been repaid. An incorrect bill of lading was presented. The bill certified that the goods had . .
Cited – Cordell v Second Clanfield Properties Ltd 1969
In a fast developing area of law, judges should acknowledge the value of ‘fertilisers of thought’: ‘argued law is tough law . . I would expose those views to the testing and refining process of argument. Today, as of old, by good disputing shall the . .
Cited – Maddison v Alderson HL 1883
The requirement of the doctrine of part performance is that the acts of part performance relied upon must be ‘referable’ to the contract sued on. The principle underlying the doctrine of part performance was expressed by Lord Selborne: ‘In a suit . .
Cited – South Tyneside Metropolitan BC v Svenska International plc 1995
The question was asked as to whether an anticipatory change of position could support a defence to a claim for restitution: ‘save perhaps in exceptional circumstances, the defence of change of position is in principle confined to changes which take . .
Cited – Sutton v Sutton 1984
The husband and his wife agreed that in consideration, inter alia, of the wife consenting to the husband divorcing her on the ground of two years’ separation and consent, he would transfer the matrimonial home to her, and she would take over . .
Cited – X v X (Y and Z intervening) FD 9-Nov-2001
The court considered an agreement under which the quid pro quo for the payment of a sum of money was a husband’s agreement not to defend his wife’s petition for divorce grounded on his behaviour (even though he believed that he had grounds for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Equity, Banking, Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188224

Colen and Another v Cebrian (UK) Limited: CA 20 Nov 2003

The company paid the claimant sales commission. Part was diverted and paid to his wife to reduce the tax payable. The employer had appealed a finding of unfair disamissal, the company arguing that the contract was illegal.
Held: The contract was illegal in its performance only. A contract illegal in its formation or where it was intended from the outset to be performed illegally would be unenforceable. Where the illegality arrived later, the contract was not automatically made unenforceable. The burden was on the company to show the illegality. The appeal succeeded. The tribunal had jurisdiction to give effect to the contract.
Waller LJ said: ‘an analysis needs to be done as to what the party’s intentions were from time to time. If the contract was unlawful at its formation or if there was an intention to perform the contract unlawfully as at the date of the contract, then the contract will be unenforceable.’ Where the illegality arose only after the inception of the contract, thegeneral rule does not apply, with the test instead, being: ‘whether the method of performance chosen and the degree of participation in that illegal performance is such as to ‘turn the contract into an illegal contract’

Judges:

Lord Justice Waller Lord Justice Peter Gibson Lord Justice Carnwath

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1676, Times 27-Nov-2003, Gazette 15-Jan-2004, [2004] ICR 568

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Mensah v East Hertfordshire NHS Trust CA 10-Jun-1998
An industrial tribunal should be helpful to litigants to help establish clearly whether issues which had been raised on the papers were not being pursued. An employee claiming racial discrimination but not pursuing it at the tribunal was not allowed . .
Cited – Holman v Johnson 5-Jul-1775
ex turpi causa non oritur actio
A claim was made for the price of goods which the plaintiff sold to the defendant in Dunkirk, knowing that the defendant’s purpose was to smuggle the goods into England. The plaintiff was met with a defence of illegality.
Held: The defence . .
Cited – Tinsley v Milligan HL 28-Jun-1993
Two women parties used funds generated by a joint business venture to buy a house in which they lived together. It was vested in the sole name of the plaintiff but on the understanding that they were joint beneficial owners. The purpose of the . .
Cited – St John Shipping Corporation v Joseph Rank Limited 1956
The defendants held a bill of lading for part of the cargo carried on the plaintiffs’ vessel from Mobile, Alabama, to Birkenhead. The vessel was over laden and the plaintiffs were guilty of an offence under the 1932 Act. The defendants relied on the . .
Cited – Ashmore, Benson, Pease and Co v A V Dawson Ltd CA 1973
By acquiescing in the unlawful overloading of the hauliers’ lorries, the consignors’ assistant transport manager and his assistant made the haulage contract unenforceable at the instance of the consignors, who were unable to recover when a lorry . .
Cited – Coral Leisure Group Ltd v Barnett EAT 1981
The court was asked whether any taint of illegality affecting part of a contract necessarily rendered the whole contract unenforceable by a party who knew of the illegality. In the case of a contract not for an illegal purpose or prohibited by . .
Cited – Newland v Simons and Willer (Hairdressers) Ltd 1981
The court was asked whether an employee could complain of unfair dismissal where the tribunal had held that the employee knew or ought to have known that her employer had failed to pay tax and national insurance contributions in respect of her . .
Cited – Wetherell v Jones 1832
The plaintiff sold spirits, misstating the strength to reduce the tax.
Held: A failure only to comply with regulations, which would result in a penalty, did not render void a sale of goods, and the plaintiff was entitled to recover the . .
Cited – B and B Viennese Fashions v Losame CA 1952
Jenkins J considered tha illegal performance of a valid contract saying: ‘It is plain from Anderson Ltd. v. Daniel that illegality in the performance of a contract may avoid it although the contract was not illegal an initio. That being so, one has . .

Cited by:

Cited – Parkingeye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd CA 17-Oct-2012
The claimant company operated parking management for the defendant, charging customers for overparking. The defendant came to believe that the claimant’s behaviour was over-aggressive, and the use of falsehoods, and terminated the contract. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Contract

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188051

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.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Elias

Citations:

EAT/312/03, [2003] EAT 0312 – 03 – 2407, [2003] UKEAT 0312 – 03 – 2407

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, EAT

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 . .

Cited by:

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

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188082

Uzoechina v Immigration Advisory Service: EAT 20 Oct 2003

EAT Practice and Procedure – Costs

Judges:

His Hon Judge Clark

Citations:

EAT/108/03, EAT/992/02, [2003] EAT 0992 – 02 – 2010, [2003] UKEAT 0992 – 02 – 2010

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Uzoechina v Immigration Advisory Service EAT 16-Jan-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.187858

Martin and others v South Bank University: ECJ 6 Nov 2003

Workers had been transferred from the NHS to the university sector and were required on their emergence into education to join the educational pension scheme.
Held: ‘In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the alteration of the employment relationship is nevertheless connected to the transfer. It is clear from the file that SBU wished merely to bring the terms upon which it offered early retirement to employees of Redwood College into line with those offered until that time to its other employees and, in such circumstances, an alteration of the employment relationship must be regarded as connected to the transfer. That the situation in the main proceedings is of that type is confirmed by the fact that, immediately after the transfer, SBU offered the employees from Redwood College a contract of employment on its terms, which the applicants nevertheless refused. It should, however, be stated that the mere fact that the applicants had joined the higher education retirement scheme has no bearing on this analysis: that factor concerns their retirement rights per se, which are the subject of the derogations under Article 3(3) of the Directive, and not the terms of early retirement.
Since the transfer of undertaking is indeed the reason for the unfavourable alteration of the terms of early retirement offered to the employees of that entity, any consent given by some of those employees to such an alteration is invalid in principle.’

Citations:

C-4/01, [2003] EUECJ C-4/01, [2004] IRLR 74

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Smith and Others v Trustees of Brooklands College EAT 5-Sep-2011
EAT TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS – Varying terms of employment
The Employment Judge was entitled to hold that the agreed variation of the Claimants’ salary was not for a reason connected with a relevant TUPE . .
Cited – Smith and Others v Trustees of Brooklands College EAT 5-Sep-2011
EAT TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS – Varying terms of employment
The Employment Judge was entitled to hold that the agreed variation of the Claimants’ salary was not for a reason connected with a relevant TUPE . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.187772

Knotts v United Friendly Insurance Plc: EAT 23 Jun 2003

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Exclusions

Judges:

Mr Recorder Luba QC

Citations:

EAT/702/02, [2003] EAT 0702 – 02 – 2306, [2003] UKEAT 0702 – 02 – 2306

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Knotts v United Friendly Insurance Plc EAT 28-Oct-2002
. .

Cited by:

Ssee Also – Knotts v United Friendly Insurance Plc EAT 28-Oct-2002
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.187636

Knight v London Borough of Harrow: EAT 29 Oct 2003

EAT Practice and Procedure – Striking-out/dismissal.
Burton J said: ‘It is thus necessary in a claim under section 47B to show that the fact that the protected disclosure had been made caused or influenced the employer to act (or not act) in the way complained of: merely to show that ‘but for’ the act or omission would not have occurred. Merely to show that ‘but for’ the disclosure the act or omission would not have occurred is not enough’

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (P)

Citations:

EAT/356/03, [2003] EAT 0349 – 03 – 2910, [2003] UKEAT 0349 – 03 – 2910, EAT/349/03, [2003] IRLR 140

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, EAT

Citing:

See Also – London Borough of Harrow v M S Knight EAT 18-Nov-2002
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Other . .
See Also – Harrow v Knight EAT 26-Nov-2001
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Barclays Bank Plc v Mitchell EAT 11-Feb-2014
EAT Victimisation Discrimination : Whistleblowing – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke – Employment Tribunal failed to explain sufficiently their reasoning on the causation issue . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.187570