EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal
Ms Recorder Slade QC
EAT/1094/01, [2002] UKEAT 1094 – 01 – 2509
See Also – Roberts v Skelmersdale College EAT 22-Apr-2002
. .
Appeal from – Roberts v Skelmersdale College CA 20-Jun-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178063
The claimant sought an account against her former employee for the disclosures made by her of their activities. The respondent had signed a confidentiality agreement. The respondent counterclaimed for assault. She now appealed from dismissal of her appeal against the summary judgment entered against her, arguing that the judge was wrong to dismiss her case as unarguable, since the contract was repudiated by the claimant’s own violent and other misconduct. The claimant argued that a confidentiality clause within an employment context survived any repudiation, and no public policy applied to justify the disclosure.
Held: Whilst the defendant might not expect to succeed, it could not be said that her case was unarguable and the case was not appropriate for summary judgement. The existence of the Press Code engaged the defendants rights of free expression. Those rights were not absolute, and were to be seen with a balance including also the claimant’s privacy rights. Whilst the defendant was not to be encouraged to persist, the case was not so unarguable as to be properly dismissed in a summary procedure: ‘We consider that it is arguable that a duty of confidentiality that has been expressly assumed under contract carries more weight, when balanced against the right of freedom of expression, that a duty of confidence than is not buttressed by express agreement’
Lord Justice Keene, Lord Justice Chadwick, Lord Phillips MR
[2002] EWCA Civ 1374, [2003] ICR 141
England and Wales
Cited – General Billposting Company Limited v Atkinson HL 1908
The employers had dismissed their employee manager ‘in deliberate disregard of the terms of the contract’ in such a way as ‘to evince an intention no longer to be bound by the contract.’ The manager had successfully brought an action for wrongful . .
Appeal from – Campbell v Frisbee ChD 14-Mar-2002
The defendant appealed a summary judgement on the claimant’s claim with respect to her alleged disclosure of details Miss Campbell’s private life. The claimant sought an action for account of profits for breach of the terms of a contract of service. . .
Cited – McKennitt and others v Ash and Another QBD 21-Dec-2005
The claimant sought to restrain publication by the defendant of a book recounting very personal events in her life. She claimed privacy and a right of confidence. The defendant argued that there was a public interest in the disclosures.
Held: . .
Cited – Associated Newspapers Ltd v Prince of Wales CA 21-Dec-2006
The defendant newspaper appealed summary judgment against it for breach of confidence and copyright infringement having published the claimant’s journals which he said were private.
Held: Upheld, although the judge had given insufficient . .
Cited – Caterpillar Logistics Services (UK) Ltd v Huesca De Crean QBD 2-Dec-2011
The claimant sought an order to prevent the defendant, a former employee, from misusing its confidential information said to be held by her. Her contract contained no post employment restrictions but did seek to control confidential and other . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.177804
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 her case, but then appealed. The EAT said she had been subjected to undue pressure, and ordered a rehearing. The respondent appealed.
Held: The tribunal chairman had apparently given ‘a strong steer’ that the claimant was at real risk of being on the wrong end of a substantial costs order if she went on with the case and failed. At the time, and in such circumstances there was little real probability of a costs order being made against the claimant. It was improper for the Employment Tribunal to have given a costs warning where the likelihood of a costs order did not justify it. However the introduction of the new ground for the award of costs where a pleading was ‘misconceived’ had lowered the standard somewhat. Appeal dismissed.
Scott Baker LJ said: ‘In my judgment a tribunal must be particularly careful not to place unfair pressure on a litigant in person. A party who is legally represented has the opportunity for his representative to put any remarks by the tribunal in context. For example the legal representative can explain the circumstances in which a tribunal is entitled to and may make a costs order . . Against this background the ‘costs warnings’ was unfair. It left [the claimant] in no doubt (and in my judgment would have left any reasonable litigant in person standing in her shoes in no doubt) that if she continued and lost she was at real risk of a substantial order for costs being made against her and that it might well be enforced against her house.’
Sedley LJ said: ‘While plainly there cannot be one rule or legal principle for litigants in person and another for those who are represented . . it does not follow that an employment tribunal is entitled to treat every party as if it had the strength of advice and representation which, for example, Shell (UK) Limited enjoyed in this case. Inexperienced lawyers may not be a match for experienced ones; lay representatives may not be a match for lawyers; some lawyers may not be a match for a clever litigant in person or an experienced lay representative. The tribunal’s job, precisely because it cannot guarantee equality of arms, is to ensure equality of access to its processes for sometimes disparately powerful parties. This involves making a careful appraisal, case by case of the parties and their respective capabilities. It must also, however, involve ultimate equality of treatment, so that whoever presses on with a doomed case after due warning faces the same risk on costs.’
Simon Browne LJ said: ‘The all important dividing line . . was between on the one hand ‘robust, effective and fair case management’ and on the other ‘inappropriate pressure and unfairness’ . . That line cannot be a sharp one: costs warnings cannot properly be characterised as having applied ‘inappropriate pressure’ or as being ‘unfair’ unless no reasonable tribunal would have given them. Given the obvious need for ‘robust and effective case management’ which might sometimes positively require a costs warning, there must be a wide margin of appreciation (a substantial area of discretionary judgment) open to the tribunal as to when and in what terms the warning should be given. It seems to me that only if it is perfectly plain to the reviewing court . . that the tribunal has overstepped to bounds of propriety will an appeal on this basis succeed.’
Simon Brown VP CA, Sedley, Scott Baker LLJ
Times 04-Nov-2002, Gazette 19-Dec-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1479, [2003] IRLR 82
England and Wales
Cited – Lodwick v London Borough of Southwark CA 18-Mar-2004
The claimant alleged bias on the part of the employment appeal tribunal chairman hearing his appeal. The chairman refused to stand down, saying that he was only one of three tribunal members with an equal vote. The chairman had four year’s . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Drysdale v The Department of Transport (The Maritime and Coastguard Agency) CA 31-Jul-2014
The claimant had been represented at his claim before the employment tribunal by his wife, acting as a lay representative. She asked to be allowed to withdraw the complaint. Without asking her, the complaint was dismissed, and costs awarded against . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.177851
The employees claimed sex discrimination, and sought to have as comparators, male employees of an employer who had previously employed some of them, before a TUPE transfer of the services supplied. The Court of Appeal referred to the court the question of whether they could rely upon Article 141(1) to base such a comparison.
Held: There was nothing explicit in the wording to restrict the comparison. However, here there was no one body answerable for the inequality and the comparison was invalid.
There is, in this connection, nothing in the wording of article 141(1) EC to suggest that the applicability of that provision is limited to situations in which men and women work for the same employer. The court has held that the principle established by that article may be invoked before national courts in particular in cases of discrimination arising directly from legislative provisions or collective labour agreements, as well as in cases in which work is carried out in the same establishment or service, whether private or public: see, inter alia, Defrenne [1976] ICR 547, 568, para 40; Macarthys Ltd v Smith (Case 129/79 [1980] ICR 672, 690, para 10, and Jenkins v Kingsgate (Clothing Productions) Ltd (Case 96/80) [1981] ICR 592, 613-614, para 17.
However, where, as in the main proceedings here, the differences identified in the pay conditions of workers performing equal work or work of equal value cannot be attributed to a single source, there is no body which is responsible for the inequality and which could restore equal treatment. Such a situation does not come within the scope of article 141(1) EC. The work and the pay of those workers cannot therefore be compared on the basis of that provision.
In view of all the of the foregoing, the answer to the first question must be that a situation such as that in the main proceedings, in which the differences identified in the pay conditions of workers of different sex performing equal work or work of equal value cannot be attributed to a single source, does not come within the scope of article 141(1) EC.’
Case C-320/00
C-320/00, [2002] EUECJ C-320/00, [2003] ICR 1092
Reference from – A Lawrence and Others v Regent Office Care Limited; Commercial Catering Group and Mitie Secure Services Limited CA 21-Jun-2000
. .
At EAT – Lawrence and others v Regent Office Care Ltd and others EAT 5-Nov-1998
. .
Cited – Sharp v Caledonia Group Services Ltd EAT 1-Nov-2005
EAT Equal Pay Act – Material factor defence – In an equal pay claim involving a presumption of direct discrimination the genuine material factor defence requires justification by objective criteria.
The . .
Cited – Sodexo Ltd v Gutridge and others EAT 31-Jul-2008
EAT EQUAL PAY ACT
JURISDICTIONAL POINTS: Claim in time and effective date of termination
The claimants alleged that their employer had been in breach of their rights under the Equal Pay Act 1970. They . .
Cited – Armstrong and others v Newcastle Upon Tyne NHS Hospital Trust CA 21-Dec-2005
The claimants claimed equal pay, asserting use of particular comparators. The Trust said that there was a genuine material factor justifying the difference in pay.
Held: To constitute a single source for the purpose of article 141, it is not . .
Considered – Robertson and others v Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs CA 22-Feb-2005
The claimants argued that civil servants in one government department could establish that civil servants in another department could stand as comparators in their equal pay claim.
Held: It was not necessarily the person with whom the workers . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.177355
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Other
The employer appealed a finding of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. She suffered an apparently minor injury, but which led to long standing disability with varying diagnoses. The company doctor came to consider it would be a long time before she could return. She was dismissed for capability.
Held: There was potentially a fair reason. The issue was whether the employer had acted reasonably. The employer argued that the defect on the original dismissal was cured in the appeal. To succeed, the employer must show that the appeal was a full appeal, not just a review. The tribunal had failed to explain its finding that the appeal had been merely a review, and accordingly the unfair dismissal decision must fail. As to the discrimination, the tribunal had improperly short circuited the steps necessary to establish discrimination, and that appeal also must be allowed.
His Hon Judge Clark
EAT/547/99, [2000] UKEAT 547 – 99 – 1212
Employment Rights Act 1996 98(4), Disability Discrimination Act 1995 1
Cited – West Midlands Co-operative Society v Tipton HL 1986
All information available to an employer at the date of the termination of the employment relationship is relevant when considering the fairness of dismissal, and also any information becoming available during the course of, for example, an internal . .
Cited – P B Baynton v Saurus General Engineers Ltd EAT 14-Jul-1999
The Tribunal set out the order of questions to be established in a claim of disability discrimination: ‘The statutory sequence for establishing justification in a s.5(1)(a) claim is as follows: (1) The disabled appellant shows less favourable . .
Cited – H J Heinz Co Ltd v Kenrick EAT 3-Dec-1999
EAT Disability Discrimination – Compensation. . .
See Also – Gate Gourmet London Ltd v Jangra EAT 13-Apr-1999
. .
See also – Gate Gourmet v Jangra EAT 7-Feb-2000
. .
See also – Jangra v Gate Gourmet London Ltd EAT 8-Oct-2001
. .
See Also – S B Jangra v Gate Gourmet London Ltd EAT 3-Oct-2002
EAT Disability Discrimination – Adjustments
The claimant had suffered a cut finger at work. Severe complications resulted in her eventual dismissal for incapacity. She sought to allege disability . .
See Also – Gate Gourmet v J B Jangra EAT 12-Dec-2002
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Other . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.177369
Appeal from a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal allowing the Respondent’s appeal against those aspects of claims for direct race discrimination, victimisation and unfair dismissal which were upheld against it by the Employment Tribunal
[2019] EWCA Civ 498
England and Wales
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.634819
Discrimination – Religious Belief/ Political opinion Breach of Contract Unauthorised Deduction of Wages Unfair Dismissal Working Time Regulations Other
[2020] NIFET 01246 – 19FET
Northern Ireland
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.657052
Discrimination – Religious Belief/ Political Opinion Unfair Dismissal Other
[2020] NIFET 00252 – 20FET
Northern Ireland
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.657063
Liability of employee for unfair dismissal of co-worker under whistleblower protection.
[2018] EWCA Civ 2321
Employment Rights Act 1996 103A
England and Wales
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.625967
EAT Unfair Dismissal : Reasonableness of Dismissal – Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason
Unfair dismissal; apparent bias; improper conduct by Employment Judge.
The employer dismissed three Claimants for gross misconduct. The Employment Tribunal found that the first and second Claimants had been fairly dismissed and that the third had been unfairly dismissed. The first and second Claimants appealed arguing that their dismissals had been unfair, and that the ET had substituted its judgment for that of the employer, and had made findings for which there was no factual basis. The Respondent appealed arguing that the third Claimant had been fairly dismissed and the ET had substituted its view for that of the employer.
Separately the Respondent argued that the EJ had the appearance of bias. His daughter was and is a partner in the firm which represented the third Claimant, but he had not disclosed that to parties. If he had done so, the Respondent might have asked him to recuse himself. Further and separately, the EJ had interrupted one of the Respondent’s witnesses when giving evidence and had thereby prevented her giving all the evidence she wished to give.
Held: the appeals are all refused. The ET looked at the investigation carried out by the Respondent, the decision made by it at first instance and the appeal which followed in great detail. It was entitled to decide as it did that the investigation was not of the best quality, and the first instance decision was flawed; but that the appeal cured the defect. It was entitled to find that the Respondent had before it sufficient material to find the first and second Claimants guilty of gross misconduct. The ET was entitled to find the investigation into the third Claimant was inadequate and that his dismissal was unfair.
The allegation of apparent bias was not made out. Neither was the allegation of improper conduct.
Lady Stacey
[2013] UKEAT 0042 – 12 – 1511
Scotland
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.526535
EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
Post employment
Reasonable adjustments
Whether re-appointment of a probationer P.C. (akin to reinstatement/re-engagement) by way of a reasonable adjustment under s16A Disability Discrimination Act was outside the powers of the chief constable in light of the Police Act and Regulations made thereunder. The Employment Tribunal held that it was; EAT disagreed. Appeal by Claimant allowed.
[2010] UKEAT 0200 – 10 – 0911
England and Wales
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.426918
Pill, Longmore, Jacob LJJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 1395
England and Wales
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.427205
The claimant solicitor had alleged disability discrimination, but several months later applied to amend his claim, to include a claim for unfair dismissal. The respondent appealed permission to do so.
Held: The EAT was being asked to interfere with the exercise of a discretion, and faced a high hurdle. The tribunal should look at what the position would be if the application had been a free standing complaint, but that was not an exclusive requirement. The tribunal had been entitled to treat the words of the original complaint as an implication of a complaint for unfair dismissal. That decision could not be described as perverse.
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal.
Mr Recorder Langstaff QC
EAT/680/01, [2002] UKEAT 0680 – 01 – 1107
Employment Rights Act 1996 111
England and Wales
Cited – Harvey v Port of Tilbury London Ltd EAT 10-Nov-1999
It was correct to refuse to allow an amendment before the tribunal to add another head of claim which would be out of time. The presentation of a new complaint is as time barred as if it had been made separately, although, the fact that proceedings . .
Cited – Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore EAT 2-May-1996
The claimant had been summarily dismissed. His application at first made no mention of a complaint that it had related to his trades union activities. He wrote to the secretary seeking amendment of his claim to include a claim that his dismissal was . .
Cited – Transport and General Workers Union v Safeway Stores Ltd EAT 23-Mar-2007
EAT Practice and Procedure – Amendment
Safeway closed a depot, leading to a large number of redundancies. The Union alleged that consultation was inadequate. Proceedings were initially commenced claiming only . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.175482
The appellant had had his case considered by the Employment Appeal Tribunal. He complained that his opponent had been represented in court by an advocate who himself sat part time in the EAT, and that this would lead to undue weight and respect being given to his arguments, so as to bias the tribunal. One of the EAT panel had previously sat on another panel with his opponent’s representative.
Held: The test was an objective one, whether a reasonable observer would see a risk of bias. The system of appointing part time members to the panel was appropriate and helpful. The reasonable observer must be assumed to be informed, and to make appropriate enquiries before reaching a conclusion. The system did include some measures to protect against this risk. In this case there were no additional ties between the representative and any member of the panel. (majority opinion)
Lord Justice Mummery, Phillips MR, Pill LJ
Times 07-Nov-2002, Gazette 28-Nov-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 327
England and Wales
Cited – Porter and Weeks v Magill HL 13-Dec-2001
Councillors Liable for Unlawful Purposes Use
The defendant local councillors were accused of having sold rather than let council houses in order to encourage an electorate which would be more likely to be supportive of their political party. They had been advised that the policy would be . .
Cited – In re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No 4) CA 26-Jul-2001
The parties had expended very considerable sums preparing for a hearing. The hearing became abortive when it was questioned whether a member of the court had given the appearance of bias. The parties sought payment of their wasted costs from the . .
Cited – Scanfuture UK Ltd, J M Link v K Bird J M Link C J Bennett Secretary of State for Department of Trade, Secretary of State for Department of Trade EAT 23-Mar-2001
The new system of appointment of lay members of employment tribunals is compliant with the right to a fair trial before an independent tribunal, particularly now where the Secretary of State had an interest in the proceedings. The Secretary had had . .
Appealed to – Lawal v Northern Spirit Limited HL 19-Jun-2003
Counsel appearing at the tribunal had previously sat as a judge with a tribunal member. The opposing party asserted bias in the tribunal.
Held: The test in Gough should be restated in part so that the court must first ascertain all the . .
Appeal from – Lawal v Northern Spirit Ltd EAT 6-Oct-1999
The applicant objected that one of the lay members of the Appeal Tribunal had, on other occasions, sat with a recorder who, as counsel, was appearing for a party in that appeal.
Held: There was no real possibility of bias from this scenario. . .
Application for leave – Lawal v Northern Spirit Ltd CA 15-Jan-2002
Application for leave to appeal . .
See Also – Lawal v Northern Spirit Ltd EAT 15-Feb-1999
The appellant wished to pursue an appeal against the striking out of his claim, and objected that contrary to the Rules, a member of the board who had heard the pre-hearing review had also sat on the full hearing.
Held: The appeal should be . .
See Also – Lawal v Northern Spirit Ltd EAT 15-Jan-2001
. .
See Also – Lawal v Northern Spirit Ltd EAT 15-Jan-2002
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Appeal Tribunal. . .
See Also – Lawal v Northern Spirit Ltd EAT 15-Jan-2002
. .
Appeal from – Lawal v Northern Spirit Limited HL 19-Jun-2003
Counsel appearing at the tribunal had previously sat as a judge with a tribunal member. The opposing party asserted bias in the tribunal.
Held: The test in Gough should be restated in part so that the court must first ascertain all the . .
Full Appeal – Lawal v Northern Spirit Ltd CA 15-Jan-2002
Application for leave to appeal . .
Cited – Lawal v Northern Spirit Ltd CA 30-Oct-2002
. .
See Also – Lawal v Northern Spirit Ltd CA 19-Feb-2004
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174768
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for Dismissal
The Honourable Mr Justice Wall
EAT/643/01, [2002] UKEAT 0643 – 01 – 1705
England and Wales
See Also – NWT Freight Forwarding Ltd v Owen EAT 1-Nov-2001
. .
Appeal from – NWT Freight Forwarding Ltd v Owen CA 27-Sep-2002
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.175072
PC (Bermuda) The courts should be reluctant to accept a fetter on the employer’s right to dismiss on notice where there is an express term in the contract empowering the employer to do so.
Lord Millet considered the contention that the employer was duty bound to preserve the relationship of trust and confidence: ‘which ought to subsist between an employer and his employee and not to destroy that relationship by discriminating arbitrarily between its employees by granting some of them valuable financial entitlements and dismissing others in order to avoid having to do so.’
Considering the case of Aspden, Lord Millet said: ‘In Aspden v Webbs Poultry and Meat Group (Holding) Ltd the employer introduced a generous permanent health insurance scheme for directors and senior managers, including the complainant. After its introduction the complainant, who up to that point had no written contract of employment, entered into a written contract. Unfortunately the form used was one which had previously been used before the scheme was introduced, and it was mistakenly adopted without modification. The contract contained a specific power enabling the employer in the event of prolonged illness to dismiss an employee who was unfit for work and a general provision entitling either party to bring the contract to an end on three months’ notice. Sedley J was satisfied on the evidence that it was not the employer’s intention to exercise its contractual right of dismissal in circumstances where to do so would frustrate the employee’s entitlement to income replacement insurance. The question was whether it was an implied term of the contract that it should not do so.’
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton, Lord Millett
[2002] IRLR 747, [2002] UKPC 38
Commonwealth
Cited – Imperial Group Pension Trust Ltd v Imperial Tobacco Ltd 1991
A company pension scheme had been operating for many years, with increases being provided for under one rule. A new rule was introduced to provide regular increases. The company was taken over, and the trustees sought clarification of the company’s . .
Cited – Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI); Mahmud v Bank of Credit and Commerce International HL 12-Jun-1997
Allowance of Stigma Damages
The employees claimed damages, saying that the way in which their employer had behaved during their employment had led to continuing losses, ‘stigma damages’ after the termination.
Held: It is an implied term of any contract of employment that . .
Cited – 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 – Nelson v British Broadcasting Corporation CA 1977
Mr Nelson was employed as a producer but had in fact been engaged in the Caribbean Service of the BBC in terms of the work which he had actually been doing. The contract of employment expressly provided that he should serve wherever and however he . .
Cited – BG Plc v P O’Brien EAT 22-Feb-2001
EAT Contract of Employment – Breach of Contract
The employee complained that he had not been offered a revised contract of employment with enhanced redundancy terms, with the result that he did not receive . .
Cited – Lefebvre v HOJ Industries Ltd 1992
All contracts of employment are, as a matter of law, subject to an implied term that they are terminable on reasonable notice, and such a term can be displaced only by clear words. . .
Cited – Aspden v Webbs Poultry and Meat Group (Holdings) Limited QBD 1996
The employer had provided a permanent health scheme for directors and senior managers, which included the complainant. After its introduction the complainant, who up to that point had no written contract of employment, entered into a written . .
Cited – Kaur v MG Rover Group Ltd CA 17-Nov-2004
The applicant was employed by the respondent who had a collective agreement with a trade union.
Held: Not all elements of the collective agreement need be intended to be legally enforceable. She complained that the collective agreement would . .
Cited – Lloyd v BCQ Ltd EAT 12-Nov-2012
lloyd_bcqEAT2012
EAT Contract of Employment : Damages for Breach of Contract – The Claimant was dismissed because of ill health. He claimed that he was entitled to (a) a golden handshake; (b) money under personal health . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.175093
The employer and employees disagreed about whether an element of holiday pay had been included in the rate of pay.
Held: There had to be an explicit agreement between the parties before this could happen. It was not for one side unilaterally to impose its own understanding of the contract. The regulations referred to ‘contractual’ rates, which required agreement. If the employee had not agreed that the sum paid included a sum in respect of a period of leave, it was no part of the contract that the sum included an element of holiday pay. The decision of the Employment Tribunal was re-instated.
Lord Justice Pill, Lord Justice Robert Walker and Sir Martin Nourse
Times 22-Aug-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1037
Working Time Regulations 1998 (1998 No 1833) 16(5)
England and Wales
Cited – MPB Structure Ltd v Alexander Michael James Munro EAT 28-Mar-2002
The company appealed a finding that a provision of their contract was void as purporting to make payments of wages in lieu of holiday pay.
Held: The aim of the regulations was to ensure that people did receive the holidays to which they were . .
Cited – The College of North East London v Leather EAT 30-Nov-2001
A part-time college lecturer claimed holiday pay under Regulation 13. Her rate of pay was calculated with the apparent aim of achieving equivalence with the remuneration of full-time lecturers. The Employment Tribunal referred to the findings of the . .
Appeal from – Gridquest Ltd T/A Select Employment, Piper Group Plc, XR Associates Ltd v Blackburn etc EAT 1-Nov-2000
The respondents appealed a finding that they were not due to make additional holiday pay under the regulations. The employer asserted that the hourly rate of pay included a rolled up element of holiday and sick pay. The employee asserted that the . .
Appealed to – Gridquest Ltd T/A Select Employment, Piper Group Plc, XR Associates Ltd v Blackburn etc EAT 1-Nov-2000
The respondents appealed a finding that they were not due to make additional holiday pay under the regulations. The employer asserted that the hourly rate of pay included a rolled up element of holiday and sick pay. The employee asserted that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174717
The employee claimed that he had been unlawfully dismissed, and that his dismissal broke the protection given to whistleblowers under the Act. The employer appealed.
Held: In such claims it was necessary first for the tribunal to establish whether it had jurisdiction, by testing whether a protected disclosure had taken place, and whether that had been the principle reason for the dismissal. This was a matter of jurisdiction, and not one of procedural fairness. Each party had to be allowed to present its own evidence on the issues, and to challenge that of the other. The appeal was allowed. The court explained the preconditions for claiming the protection of the Act.
Mummery LJ said: ‘A party is entitled to adduce evidence relevant to the issues in the case and to put questions on relevant matters to the other party and to his witnesses. It is for the Tribunal, with the assistance of the parties and their representatives, to identify the relevant issues for decision and to exercise its discretionary case management powers to decide whether the evidence adduced or the questions put to the witnesses in cross -examination are relevant .’
As to the construction of the new protected disclosure provision, Mummery LJ said: ‘The self-evident aim of the provisions is to protect employees from unfair treatment (i.e. victimisation and dismissal) for reasonably raising in a responsible way genuine concerns about wrongdoing in the workplace. The provisions strike an intricate balance between (a) promoting the public interest in the detection, exposure and elimination of misconduct, malpractice and potential dangers by those likely to have early knowledge of them, and (b) protecting the respective interests of employers and employees. There are obvious tensions, private and public, between the legitimate interest in the confidentiality of the employer’s affairs and in the exposure of wrong.’
The Vice-Chancellor, Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Rix
Times 29-Aug-2002, Gazette 03-Oct-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1085, [2002] Emp LR 1054, [2002] ICR 1444, [2002] IRLR 807
Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, Employment Rights Act 1996 47B 103A
England and Wales
Appeal from – ALM Medical Services Ltd v Bladon EAT 19-Jan-2001
. .
Application for leave – ALM Medical Services Ltd v Bladon CA 22-Nov-2001
Application for leave to appeal. . .
See Also – ALM (Medical Services) Ltd v Bladon CA 10-Jul-2001
. .
Cited – Street v Derbyshire Unemployed Workers’ Centre CA 21-Jul-2004
The claimant alleged that she had been dismissed for making qualifying disclosures about her employers. The employer said that her actions had not been in good faith. The claimant answered that her motive was irrelevant. The claimant appealed . .
Cited – Digby v East Cambridgeshire District Council EAT 30-Nov-2006
EAT Unfair dismissal – Reasonableness of dismissal
Practice and Procedure – Admissibility of evidence
Total exclusion of evidence relating to final written warning inextricably linked with sanction of . .
Cited – Arthur v London Eastern Railway Ltd (T/A One Stansted Express) CA 25-Oct-2006
The claimant brought a claim for detriment suffered after he had made a protected disclosure. The employer replied that he was out of the three month time limit. He had been off sick after being assaulted, and said that his employers had treated him . .
Cited – Chesterton Global Ltd (t/a Chestertons) and Another v Nurmohamed (Victimisation Discrimination: Whistleblowing) EAT 8-Apr-2015
chesteron_nurmohamedEAT201504
EAT VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION
Whistleblowing
Protected disclosure
This appeal concerns the meaning of the words ‘in the public interest’ inserted into section 43B(1) of the Employment Rights . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174425
The employee claimed commission on the acquisition of a major corporate client. The company claimed that the commission agreement related only to private client work. The company now appealed a finding against it.
Held: The recorder had amended his judgement, which was doubtful as correct. He had awarded the same sum both on a quantum meruit basis, and on an incentive payment basis. This suggested a lack of understanding of the issues. The decision was set aside. The contract and background suggested that he was to introduce private client work, and incentive payments outside that scope did not apply. On a quantum meruit basis he would be entitled to a lesser sum calculated in a similar way to incentives payable to others within the corporate division.
Lord Justice Laws, Lord Justice May, Lord Phillips Master of the Rolls
[2002] EWCA Civ 1118
England and Wales
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174423
The claimant sought damages. She had been employed by the respondent in the social services department but came to suffer from stress, and had to give up work.
Held: A claimant in such a position had to do something to make it clear to the defendant that she was suffering stress. It could not be for the employer to have to work this out. General forseeability of this kind of risk is not enough. In this case the claimant had not done enough.
The Honourable Mr Justice Buckley
[2002] EWHC 1608 (QB)
Appealed to – Pratley v Surrey County Council CA 25-Jul-2003
The claimant sought damages for personal injury namely stress suffered in the course of her work as a care manager. She said that she had been overworked, and suffered depression when a proposal for reducing the work load remained unimplemented. The . .
Appeal from – Pratley v Surrey County Council CA 25-Jul-2003
The claimant sought damages for personal injury namely stress suffered in the course of her work as a care manager. She said that she had been overworked, and suffered depression when a proposal for reducing the work load remained unimplemented. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174448
Civil servants had been transferred to Training and Enterprise Councils in 1990, and resigned from the Civil Service in 1993. They appealed a decision that there had not been a transfer of an undertaking, and that they had continuity of employment.
Held: The tribunal had focused on the date of transfer. Looking at the Directive rather than the Regulations, the skills of the claimants became available to the new organisation irrespective of the date of their resignation from the Civil Service, and the wording of the Directive was wide enough to allow application to a transfer which took place over an extended period of time. The appeal succeeded.
Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Jackson
Times 09-Aug-2002, Gazette 26-Sep-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1035, [2002] ICR 1289, [2002] IRLR 629, [2002] Emp LR 1064, [2002] 3 CMLR 15,
Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employees) Regulations 1981 (SI 1981 No 1794), Acquired Rights Directive 77/187/EEC (OJ 1977 L61)
England and Wales
Appeal from – Celtec Limited v John Astley Julie Owens, Deborah Lynn Hawkes EAT 5-Oct-2001
The employer appealed a finding that there had been continuity of employment between itself and a previous employer. The employees had sought a statement as to their terms of employment. The employer was a training and enterprise council, to whom . .
Appeal from – Celtec Limited v Astley and others HL 10-Nov-2003
The employments of civil servants had been transferred to the defendant company. There had been some delay between their resignations and the new arrangements. The employee claimed the protection of the directive, saying that there had been a . .
At Court of Appeal – North Wales Training and Enterprise Council Ltd v Astley and others HL 21-Jun-2006
Civil servants had been transferred to a private company. At first they worked under secondment from the civil service. They asserted that they had protection under TUPE and the Acquired Rights Directive. The respondent said that there had only been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174350
EAT Time Limits –
Her Honour Judge A Wakefield
EAT/594/00, [2002] UKEAT 594 – 00 – 1005
See Also – Parnell v Wiltshire and Swindon Users Network EAT 14-Jun-2000
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174140
The appellants were journalists and other workers, and members of trades unions. Their employers had de-recognised the unions, paying sums to buy out those rights. The claimants had not surrendered their rights, and had been paid less because of it.
Held: The Act did not protect the employees rights of association as guaranteed by article 11. The freedom to be a trade union member received special protection. The absence of an obligation on employers to enter into collective bargaining agreements did not infringe the right of free association, but the UK law did allow employers to treat less favourably employees wanting to exercise their rights to be members of trade unions, and that was a breach. Art 11 could not be read to oblige public authorities to provide a legal mechanism to compel an employer to enter into negotiations with a particular trade union.
J-P Costa, President and Judges A. Baka, G. Jorundsson, K. Jungwiert, M. Ugrekhelidze, A. Mularoni and Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, ad hoc judge Section Registrar S. Dolle
Times 05-Jul-2002, 30668/96, [2002] ECHR 547, 30671/96, Times 05-Jul-2002, [2002] IRLR 568, [2011] ECHR 1654
Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 23(1)(a), European Convention on Human Rights 11
Human Rights
Cited – Gustafsson v Sweden ECHR 25-Apr-1996
Hudoc No violation of Art. 11; No violation of Art. 6-1; No violation of Art. 13; No violation of P1-1
The right to freedom of association under article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights includes . .
Cited – Regina (National Union of Journalists) v Central Arbitration Committee Admn 19-Nov-2004
The NUJ appealed refusal of collective negotiating rights with the Daily Mirror, having a majority of the members in the sports division. The paper had previously given exclusive rights to a competing union. At the time of the hearing the competing . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174181
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal – appeal against grant of extension of time to file notice of appearance.
His Hon Judge McMullen QC
EAT/1467/01, [2002] UKEAT 1467 – 01 – 2103
England and Wales
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174158
The complainant was a post office employee. He brought a claim for unfair dismissal, but he posted it at a time when in the normal course of delivery, it would not arrive. He claimed to be unaware of the normal times for delivery.
Held: It was for the claimant to establish that his case fell within the section allowing a tribunal to permit late service. The tribunal could not assume from his employment, levels of knowledge about such matters. Whether a letter would be delivered in the normal course of post was to be assessed objectively, and not subjectively. It is unfortunate that the rules of the employment tribunals had not been brought into line with those applying to litigation under the Civil Procedure Rules. The rule in Godwin did not apply in employment tribunal cases.
Lord Justice Brooke
Times 03-Jul-2002, Gazette 01-Aug-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 878, [2002] ICR 1193, [2002] Emp LR 983, [2002] IRLR 624, [2002] 3 All ER 801
Employment Rights Act 1996 111(2)
England and Wales
Cited – Godwin v Swindon Borough Council CA 10-Oct-2001
The claimant appealed against an order striking out his claim for personal injuries. The claim had been issued in time, but not served. An extension of time was granted, and the notice sent by first class post the day before that period expired. The . .
Appeal from – Consignia (Formerly the Post Office) v Sealy EAT 11-Jun-2001
. .
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.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174008
The claimant sought damages for sex discrimination after her summary dismissal. Though she received some advice, her application was lodged out of time. For the unfair dismissal and unlawful deductions claims, the test was whether it had been reasonably practicable to act within the time limits, but for the sex discrimination claim, the test was a just and equitable test. The tribunal had also to ask whether the claim was presented within a practicable time after the limitation period had expired. She had had difficulties with a pregnancy, and from losing her accommodation which went with the job.
Held: Here the tribunal had not applied the correct tests. Appeal allowed and case remitted.
His Hon Judge Clark
EAT/1312/00, [2002] UKEAT 1312 – 00 – 1904
Employment Rights Act 1996 111(2)(b) 23(4)
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.173993
Officials.
T-95/01, [2001] EUECJ T-95/01
European
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.173912
Officials.
[2001] EUECJ T-171/00
European
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.173852
Retirement pension – Weighting – Action for annulment – Inadmissibility.
T-338/99, [2000] EUECJ T-338/99
European
See Also – Schuerer v Commission ECJ 24-Nov-1983
(Judgment) Invalidity pension – Revision of a judgment. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.173758
Officials.
[2001] EUECJ T-344/99
European
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.173760
Integration of the Schengen Secretariat into the General Secretariat of the Council – Action for annulment.
[2001] EUECJ T-164/99, T-164/99
England and Wales
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.173707
Officials – Occupational disease – Exposure to asbestos – Rate of permanent partial invalidity – Irregularity of the opinion of the medical board – Failure to state reasons.
T-300/97, [1999] EUECJ T-300/97
European
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.173463
Officials – Appointment – Vacancy Notice – Interests of the service.
[1997] EUECJ T-21/96
European
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.173154
Officials – Vacancy notice – Annulment of the procedure in progress – Notice of competition – Post reserved for nationals of new Member States – Action for annulment – Admissibility – Articles 4 and 29 of the Staff Regulations – Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations – Principle of legal certainty – Misuse of powers – Action for damages.
T-35/96, [1997] EUECJ T-35/96
European
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.173166
Officials – New post with the Committee of the Regions – Vacancy Notice – Rejection of candidatures – Application for annulment – Delay in communicating the rejection decisions – Failure to state reasons – Equality of treatment – Manifest error of assessment.
T-178/95, [1997] EUECJ T-178/95
European
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.173088
Officials – Rejection of application for a post – Article 19(1) of the Council’s rules of procedure – Article 45 of the Staff Regulations – Power of the Secretary-General of the Council to adopt decisions rejecting an application for a post and a complaint – Notive of vacancy – Manifest error of assessment – Articles 7 and 27 of the Staff Regulations – Obligation to provide a statement of reasons – Misuse of powers.
[1997] EUECJ T-6/96
European
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.173141
ECJ 1. The existence of a vacant post, within the meaning of Articles 4 and 29 of the Staff Regulations, presupposes that a post is not filled amongst the total number of permanent posts referred to in the list of posts appended, in accordance with Article 6 of the Staff Regulations, to the section of the budget relating to the institution in question and indicating, for each category and each service, the number of posts in each grade for each career bracket. A procedure for the rotation of staff within an institution, under which officials are re-assigned together with their posts, does not constitute a procedure for the filling of a vacant post. It follows that Articles 4, 29 and 45 of the Staff Regulations do not apply to a procedure of that kind.
However, the organization of the Community civil service is governed by certain general principles of law, including equality of treatment and protection of legitimate expectations, which may not be disregarded in the context of a procedure, such as that for the rotation of staff, which is not explicitly provided for by the Staff Regulations. The application of those principles implies, on the one hand, that the administration is obliged to undertake a proper comparative examination of the merits of the candidates and, on the other, that once it has decided to fill a specific post by means of that procedure, it must carry it through properly, observing the terms of the notice which it has published, before calling for applications from external candidates under a different procedure.
2. The decision to terminate a staff rotation procedure without filling a particular job by appointing an internal candidate falls within the discretion enjoyed by the appointing authority in this context. Although the administration is not obliged to carry through a recruitment procedure initiated pursuant to Article 29 of the Staff Regulations with a view to filling a vacant post, that principle must, a fortiori, apply by analogy in cases where the administration calls for internal applications in the context of a staff rotation procedure.
T-32/92, [1993] EUECJ T-32/92
European
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172560
Officials – Admissibility – Action challenging a decision of a selection board applying the conditions laid down in a competition notice.
T-60/92, [1993] EUECJ T-60/92
European
See Also – Noonan v Commission ECFI 28-Mar-1996
ECJ Any condition in a competition notice which prohibits candidates with a university degree from entering a competition for category C posts is unlawful – as is any decision of a selection board based on such a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172579
ECJ 1. Officials – Actions – Prior complaint through official channels – Time-limits – Matter of public policy – Expiry – Re-opening – Conditions – New fact – Request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations – No effect (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) 2. Officials – Actions – Prior complaint through official channels – Implied decision rejecting a request not challenged within the time-limit – Subsequent express decision – Confirmatory measure – Expiry (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)
T-55/92, [1993] EUECJ T-55/92
European
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172574
ECJ 1. Both Article 72 of the Staff Regulations and Article 3 of the Rules on sickness insurance for officials of the European Communities take as their starting point the idea that, as far as possible, an official’ s spouse who is in gainful employment must seek reimbursement of his or her medical expenses under the sickness insurance scheme which covers him or her, by virtue of his or her own employment, against the risks of sickness, since only supplementary cover is provided under the Community scheme. Neither Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations nor Article 3(1) of the Insurance Rules makes the spouse’ s supplementary cover under the joint scheme, where he or she is gainfully employed, subject to the condition that, by the very fact of the occupation in question, compulsory insurance against the same risks is also provided by virtue of other legal provisions or regulations. On the contrary, Article 3(1) of the Insurance Rules must be interpreted as referring to both the case where the spouse’ s occupation gives rise in itself, by virtue of legal provisions or regulations, to an obligation to insure against sickness and also the case where the occupation only makes it possible for him or her to benefit, by virtue of legal provisions or regulations, from voluntary insurance against the same risks. 2. The right to rely on the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations extends to any individual who is in a situation in which it appears that the conduct of the Community administration has led him to entertain reasonable expectations. An official may not plead a breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations unless the administration has given him precise assurances. Promises which do not take account of the provisions of the Staff Regulations cannot give rise to a legitimate expectation on the part of the person concerned.
T-20/91, [1992] EUECJ T-20/91
European
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172470
Officials – Application for appointment to the higher grade in career bracket A 7/A 6.
T-30/92, [1993] EUECJ T-30/92
European
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172559
EAT Contract of Employment – Definition of Employee
His Honour Judge D Pugsley
EAT/525/00, [2001] UKEAT 525 – 00 – 0202
Appeal from – Jayasuriya v Meat Hygiene Service and Another CA 6-Sep-2001
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172005
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason.
His Hon Judge J R Reid QC
EAT/887/00, [2001] UKEAT 887 – 00 – 2012
England and Wales
Appeal from – 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.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172070
The claimant appealed a finding that he had not been constructively dismissed on a transfer of the undertaking in which he was employed.
His Honour Judge A Wilkie QC
EAT/243/00, [2001] UKEAT 243 – 00 – 0902
Appeal from – Rossiter v Pendragon plc; Clarke v Air Foyle Ltd CA 10-May-2002
The employers appealed against findings that employees could claim constructive dismissal on a transfer of an undertaking simply because of a change in the employment conditions after the transfer.
Held: Neither the Regulations nor the Act . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172023
The complainant appealed a decision that she had not been constructively dismissed. She had been told off in public, causing her great distress. The tribunal had found the employer’s behaviour regrettable but not such as to break the duty of trust and confidence. It was argued that any breach of that duty must go to the root of the contract. The question is whether, objectively speaking, the employer has conducted itself in a manner likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of confidence and trust between the employer and employee. The tribunal erred in finding a breach of that duty, but at a level below that at which resignation was justified. The matter was remitted for a rehearing.
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for Dismissal
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason.
Ms Recorder Cox QC
EAT/0275/00, [2002] IRLR 9, [2000] UKEAT 275 – 00 – 1206
Cited – Courtaulds Northern Textiles Ltd v Andrew EAT 1979
There is implied into a contract of employment a term that the employers will not, without reasonable and proper cause, conduct themselves in a manner calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of confidence and trust . .
Considered – Woods v W M Car Services (Peterborough) Ltd EAT 1981
An employer will be guilty of a breach which entitles an employee to resign and claim constructive dismissal if the employer behaves in such a way as to destroy the relationship of trust and confidence. An employer shall not ‘without reasonable and . .
Cited – Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI); Mahmud v Bank of Credit and Commerce International HL 12-Jun-1997
Allowance of Stigma Damages
The employees claimed damages, saying that the way in which their employer had behaved during their employment had led to continuing losses, ‘stigma damages’ after the termination.
Held: It is an implied term of any contract of employment that . .
Cited – 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 . .
See Also – Morrow v Safeway Stores Plc EAT 21-Sep-2001
The claimant appealed against dismissal of her claim of unfair constructive dismissal. She complained of having been publicly told off. The court considered whether this amounted to a breach of a fundamental term of her contract entitling her to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.171917
EAT Disability Discrimination – Disability
EAT Disability Discrimination – Disability.
The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (P)
EAT/1116/00, [2002] UKEAT 1116 – 00 – 2502, [2002] ICR 971
Disability Discrimination Act 1995
See Also – Rowden v Dutton Gregory Solicitors EAT 1-Mar-2001
Disability Discrimination – Disability. . .
Cited – London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm HL 25-Jun-2008
Unrelated Detriment was no Discrimination
The tenant had left his flat and sublet it so as to allow the landlord authority an apparently unanswerable claim for possession. The authority appealed a finding that they had to take into account the fact that the tenant was disabled and make . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172096
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 the claimant who invoked the right to such a trial by bringing the claim.
Lindsay J discussed the calling of expert evidence in an Employment Tribnal claim: ‘Careful thought needs to be given before any party embarks upon instructions for expert evidence. It by no means follows that because a party wishes such evidence to be admitted that it will be . . A prudent party will first explore with the employment tribunal at a directions hearing or in correspondence whether, in principle, expert evidence is likely to be acceptable.’
The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President)
EAT/1438/00, [2001] IRLR 324, [2001] UKEAT 1438 – 00 – 2003
England and Wales
Cited – V Zanicchi v The Post Office EAT 26-Sep-2002
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal
The applicant appealed dismissal of his claim on the grounds of it being vexatious. He had failed to comply with directions as to serving of statements, and had . .
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 – 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 – Chambers-Mills v Allied Bakeries CA 21-Feb-2011
The claimant appealed against the strike out of her case for failing to comply with an order requiring her to submit to medical examination and otherwise to pursue her disability discrimination claim.
Held: The claimant’s further application . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172041
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Appeal Tribunal
His Honour Judge Peter Clark
EAT/767/00, [2001] UKEAT 767 – 00 – 2011
England and Wales
See Also – Robert Fletcher (Greenfield) Ltd v Blakeman EAT 12-Jan-2001
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172090
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal
The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President)
EAT/103/00, [2001] UKEAT 103 – 00 – 0802
Appealed to – Rothschild Asset Management Limited v Ako CA 1-Mar-2002
The applicant had, in earlier proceedings before the Employment Tribunal, withdrawn issues she had raised. She now sought to pursue them, and the respondent asserted that she was estopped from doing so, and that the matter was res judicata. The . .
Appeal from – Rothschild Asset Management Limited v Ako CA 1-Mar-2002
The applicant had, in earlier proceedings before the Employment Tribunal, withdrawn issues she had raised. She now sought to pursue them, and the respondent asserted that she was estopped from doing so, and that the matter was res judicata. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172024
EAT The EAT considered the expression ‘likely to last’ in paragraph 2(1)(b) of the Act, and stated: ‘It is always tempting to accord, and is often appropriate, when it is charged with finding out what at some earlier date the future would then have seem to hold, to have regard to what the future in fact came to pass to be, as, by the date of the hearing, will have sometimes come to be the case’.
‘But both the terms of Schedule 1, paragraph 2(1)(b), and the opening words of paragraph B8 of the Guidance emphasise that here what has to be examined is the existence or not of a likelihood. The question is not whether the impairment in fact lasted at least 12 months (as would very often, given inescapable delays in arranging hearings, be capable of being easily seen by looking backwards from the date of the hearing) but whether the ‘period for which it lasts is likely to be at least 12 months’. Although the latter part of the first sentence of paragraph B8 is unhelpful as guidance, it is not, in our view, intended to displace the otherwise proper construction of paragraph 2(1)(b), which the present tense ‘is likely’ assists towards, namely that the likelihood falls to be judged as it currently was, or would have seemed to have been, at the point when the discriminatory behaviour occurred. The latter part of paragraph B8 (taking account of the typical length rather than the actual length of an effect as it has transpired to be) emphasises that it is not what has actually later occurred but what could earlier have been expected to occur which is to be judged.
Mr Harris has sought to persuade us that Greenwood v British Airways plc [1999] ICR 969 is to the contrary, in particular at p 977E-F. It is clear that in some respects that paragraph is not to the contrary, but to the extent that it is we must respectfully differ from it’.
EAT Disability Discrimination – Disability.
The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (P)
[2002] ICR 1453, EAT/1303/00, [2002] UKEAT 1303 – 00 – 2002, [2002] ICR 1453
Disability Discrimination Act 1995
See Also – Latchman v Reed Business Information Ltd EAT 7-Mar-2001
. .
Cited – Bwllfa and Merthyr Dare Steam Collieries (1891) Ltd v Pontypridd Waterworks Co HL 1903
A coalmine owner claimed statutory compensation against a water undertaking which had, under its statutory authority, prevented him mining his coal over a period during which the price of coal had risen. The House was asked whether the coal should . .
Cited – Richmond Adult Community College v McDougall CA 17-Jan-2008
The claimant had been offered and had accepted a job subject to satisfactory health clearance. When that was not received her offer was withdrawn. She had suffered a condition which would affect her daily activities, but had recovered from that . .
Overruled – SCA Packaging Ltd v Boyle (Northern Ireland) HL 1-Jul-2009
The claimant suffered a condition which would lead to the development of vocal nodules unless she followed a program which would allow her to avoid raising her voice. She said that employer should not have placed her within a noisy environment. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172093
Race Discrimination – Direct. After dealing with the arguments based on the history of the various statutes: ‘Whether the employer deliberately dismisses the employee on racial grounds or he so acts as to repudiate the contract by racially discriminatory conduct, which repudiation the employee accepts, the end result is the same, namely the loss of employment by the employee. Why should Parliament be taken to have distinguished between these two situations?’
Constructive dismissal came within the term ‘dismissal’, as used in section 4(2)(c). There was no reason to give the word ‘dismissal’ a narrow meaning so as to exclude constructive dismissal: ‘We can see some force in the reasoning in Harrold, but in the end we are not persuaded by it. There may be a number of reasons why Parliament chose to make an amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, not least its wish to ensure that there could [be] no doubt whatsoever about the Act’s compliance with Community law, as the judgment in Harrold indicates. It cannot be taken as an indication by Parliament that, in other legislation with which it was not dealing, ‘dismissal’ was to be given a restricted meaning. We emphasis that because, if one approaches the meaning of ‘dismissal’ in the Race Relations Act without that extraneous influence, there is no reason why it should be so construed as to exclude constructive dismissal. Whether the employer deliberately dismisses the employee on racial grounds or he so acts to repudiate the contract by racially discriminatory conduct, which repudiation the employee accepts, the end result is the same, namely the loss of employment by the employee. Why should Parliament be taken to have distinguished between these two situations?’
The Honourable Mr Justice Keene
EAT/1139/99, EAT/817/99, [2001] ICR 833, [2001] IRLR 69, [2000] UKEAT 817 – 99 – 2809, [2001] 2 All ER 840
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 – Meikle v Nottinghamshire County Council EAT 19-Aug-2003
EAT Disability Discrimination – Less favourable treatment. The appellant brought proceedings against the Respondents alleging that they had failed to make adjustments to her workplace and conditions so as to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.171915
EAT Contract of Employment – Breach of Contract
EAT Contract of Employment – Breach of Contract.
His Hon Judge Pugsley
EAT/847/00, [2001] UKEAT 0847 – 00 – 1112
See Also – Howell v The Post Office EAT 30-Nov-2000
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172097
EAT Burton J considered the cases of ECM and Betts as to whether there had been a transfer of the undertaking saying: ‘but what the Court of Appeal in Betts did not say, and indeed the Court of Appeal in ECM did not say, is that if there be a finding of fact by a tribunal that there was a deliberate decision by a possible transferee not to take on any of the possible transferor’s staff, in order that, or with the intended result that, [TUPE] should not apply, then in such a circumstance all the employees are deemed to have been transferred.
In any event, if the ‘reason why the employees were not appointed by ECM’ is to be left to be considered as a factor by the employment tribunal, the interpretation and the weight must also be for them. Is subjective intention or motive, or objective purpose or effect to be judged? It may be difficult if not impossible to differentiate – if it is relevant to do so – between a decision not to take on any staff because it is desired to avoid, or not to trigger, the Regulations of 1981, a decision not to take on any staff with the effect that the Regulations do not apply and a decision that, because it is not intended to take on any staff, the Regulations do not apply . . On the one hand there will no doubt be scrutiny by the Employment Tribunal of the transactions, on the other hand the fact that there is not a transfer, because no transfer of staff, cannot itself lead to a conclusion that there is a transfer.
Mummery LJ in the Court of Appeal in ECM . . is at pains to point out, not only, as Morison P himself had done in the Appeal Tribunal, that the issue arose out of a finding by the employment tribunal, but also that, again as Morison P had concluded . . such factor did not, on the facts of ECM, stand alone as the only basis for the conclusion that there had been a transfer. ECM is thus not itself a case which would support, or at any rate exemplify, a proposition that, in the absence of a transfer of any assets or any staff, or of any other material factor indicating a transfer, the ECM point alone would be determinative of the issue of transfer.
It is in all those circumstances that Mummery LJ’s guidance remains, at 1169E-F, simply that ‘the tribunal was entitled to have regard, as a relevant circumstance, to the reason why those employees were not appointed by ECM’.’
Burton J
EAT/1051/98, [2000] UKEAT 1051 – 98 – 1804
See Also – Whitewater Leisure Management Ltd v Barnes and others EAT 21-Jan-1999
. .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – 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.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.171838
EAT The employer appealed against a finding of unfair dsmissal and unlawful disability discrimination. He claimant suffered post traumatic stress after a fire at the appellant’s premises, and the employer was advised to remove him from safety critical positions. They made attempts to find alternate work, but the claimant said the attempts were inadequate, and the tribunal agreed.
Held: Where the potential for alternative employment lay for practical purposes exclusively within the knowledge of the employer, the burden of proof is on the employer to satisfy the tribunal that there was no alternative employment, available in the reasonably acceptable future for this employee. The company had not discharged this burden, and their appeal failed.
His Honour Judge Collins Cbe
EAT/83/00, [2001] UKEAT 83 – 00 – 3001
Disability Discrimination Act 1995 5(1) 6
See Also – Conoco Ltd v Booth EAT 6-Apr-2000
The EAT held a preliminary hearing on the employer’s appeal against a finding of disability discrimination. . .
Cited – Goodwin v Patent Office EAT 21-Oct-1998
An ability to carry out normal domestic day to day tasks did not mean that a physical impairment was not substantial. The word ‘substantial’ is potentially ambiguous. In that it might mean ‘very large’ or ‘more than minor or trivial’. The code of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172011
The applicant objected that one of the lay members of the Appeal Tribunal had, on other occasions, sat with a recorder who, as counsel, was appearing for a party in that appeal.
Held: There was no real possibility of bias from this scenario. The tribunal had to be independent and impartial, but mere generalised allegations of pre-disposition to favour one party were insufficient to create any legitimate doubt as to impartiality. The assertion was that there was a risk that a lay member might be subconsciously influenced by the previous professional relationship. For something as insidious and diverse as bias, it was not reasonable to demand an authority on all fours before finding a breach of article 6, but the lay members were carefully chosen. The requirements of article 6 differed only slightly from those long required by common law.
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Appeal Tribunal
The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President)
EAT/1170/98, EAT/1171/98, [1999] UKEAT 1170 – 98 – 0610
European Convention on Human Rights 1953 (1953 Cmd 8969), Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 1993 7(9) 11
Application for leave – Lawal v Northern Spirit Ltd EAT 15-Feb-1999
The appellant wished to pursue an appeal against the striking out of his claim, and objected that contrary to the Rules, a member of the board who had heard the pre-hearing review had also sat on the full hearing.
Held: The appeal should be . .
See Also – Lawal v Northern Spirit Ltd EAT 15-Jan-2001
. .
Cited – Divine-Bortey v London Borough of Brent CA 14-May-1998
The claimant had brought and lost an action relating to his dismissal by the defendant, who now appealed against an order that he was not estopped from bring a second claim on a different basis namely race discrimination, disapplying the rule in . .
Appeal from – AA Lawal v Northern Spirit Limited CA 9-Aug-2002
The appellant had had his case considered by the Employment Appeal Tribunal. He complained that his opponent had been represented in court by an advocate who himself sat part time in the EAT, and that this would lead to undue weight and respect . .
See Also – Lawal v Northern Spirit Ltd EAT 15-Jan-2001
. .
See Also – Lawal v Northern Spirit Ltd EAT 15-Jan-2002
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Appeal Tribunal. . .
See Also – Lawal v Northern Spirit Ltd CA 15-Jan-2002
Application for leave to appeal . .
See Also – Lawal v Northern Spirit Ltd EAT 15-Jan-2002
. .
See Also – Lawal v Northern Spirit Ltd CA 30-Oct-2002
. .
See Also – Lawal v Northern Spirit Limited HL 19-Jun-2003
Counsel appearing at the tribunal had previously sat as a judge with a tribunal member. The opposing party asserted bias in the tribunal.
Held: The test in Gough should be restated in part so that the court must first ascertain all the . .
See Also – Lawal v Northern Spirit Ltd CA 19-Feb-2004
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.171704
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason
Lindsay J said: ‘As for determining whether a wrongdoer is on his own business, just as no single test is nowadays seen to be determinative of whether a person is an employee (as opposed, for example, to being self-employed or an independent contractor), so also no one test is determinative of a person being on his own business for the purposes of vicarious liability, very commonly a closely related question. Similar questions arise in both cases: was remuneration paid for the doing of what was done; was what was done, done for the benefit of the party sought vicariously to be made liable (‘the propositus’)? Was the act complained of reasonably incidental to the duties of the wrongdoer as cast upon him by the propositus? Was the propositus in a position of control, not only to order what was to be done but how it was to be done? Was the propositus in a position to select who should do the activity in the course of which the wrongful act occurred? Could the propositus suspend or stop that activity? Was what was done expressly or impliedly authorised by the propositus? Was it an unauthorised way of doing something which was authorised? Was it the performance of an act of a class the wrongdoer was not required to do at all or had been forbidden to do? No single question and answer is likely to be determinative but together the answers should provide a composite from which it can be adjudged whether vicarious liability exists.’
Justice Lindsay (President)
EAT/313/99, [2000] EAT 313 – 99 – 2703, [2001] ICR 271
See Also – Moores v Bude-Stratton Town Council EAT 13-May-1999
Preliminary hearing in proposed appeal. . .
Cited – Cheltenham Borough Council v Laird QBD 15-Jun-2009
The council sought damages saying that their former chief executive had not disclosed her history of depressive illness when applying for her job.
Held: The replies were not dishonest as the form could have been misconstrued. The claim failed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.171795
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal
The Honourable Mr Justice Burton
EAT/220/99, [2000] EAT 220 – 99 – 2303
England and Wales
See Also – Ghosh v London Borough of Tower Hamlets EAT 2-Jul-1999
Preliminary appeal against order for payment by claimant of respondent’s costs of the hearing before the Emloyment Tribunal.
Held: The appeal could go ahead. . .
See Also – Ghosh v Tower Hamlets and others EAT 13-Nov-2002
The claimant sought leave to appeal, and the EAT considered whether any point of law was properly raised. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.171798
EAT Disability Discrimination – Compensation
The Honourable Mr Justice Charles
EAT/461/99, [2000] EAT 461 – 99 – 1506, [2000] IRLR 691
England and Wales
See Also – London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham v Farnsworth EAT 30-Jun-1999
. .
Cited – London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm HL 25-Jun-2008
Unrelated Detriment was no Discrimination
The tenant had left his flat and sublet it so as to allow the landlord authority an apparently unanswerable claim for possession. The authority appealed a finding that they had to take into account the fact that the tenant was disabled and make . .
See Also – Desmond A Quinn v Schwarzkopf Ltd EAT 10-Oct-2000
EAT Disability Discrimination – Disability . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.171466
The claimant challenged refusal of his claim of discrimination. He was profoundly deaf. He applied for work, and indicated his disability, but no provision was made for a signer to appear at the interview. The interview was re-arranged, but he failed.
Held: The tribunal gave reasons for finding that the disability had played no part in the decision not to employ the claimant. The appeal failed.
EAT Disability Discrimination – Reasonable adjustments.
His Honour Judge Peter Clark
EAT/6/99, [2000] EAT 6 – 99 – 1101
Disability Discrimination Act 1995 1
Cited – Swiggs and others v Nagarajan HL 15-Jul-1999
Bias may not be intentional
The applicant claimed that he had been denied appointment to a job with London Regional Transport because he had brought a number of previous race discrimination claims against it or associated companies. An industrial tribunal had upheld his claim . .
Cited – Owen and Briggs v James CA 1981
Sex need not be the sole ground on which the less favourable treatment is based. Provided that it is a significant factor, albeit one of a number of factors, the others being gender-neutral, it will be open to an Industrial Tribunal to find that . .
Cited – O’Neill v Governors of St Thomas More Roman Catholic Voluntary Aided Upper School EAT 7-Jun-1996
The dismissal by a Roman Catholic school of a teacher who was pregnant by a priest, was on the grounds of pregnancy, and for an inadmissible reason. The pregnancy was an effective cause of the adverse treatment of the Appellant by her employer. . .
Cited – Goodwin v Patent Office EAT 3-Feb-1999
Tribunals looking at Disability Discrimination should check the four factors in the Act without losing the overall picture. Assistance was available from the WHO Classification of Diseases. Being able to carry out a task did not mean ability was not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.171442
Against a background of disciplinary proceedings alleging threats by the employee, and allegations of harassment, she was dismissed for ill health. She requested an adjustment to the procedures to allow her to give written evidence after advice from her doctor about the inadvisability of attending a hearing for her health. When this was refused, she laid a complaint of disability discrimination. It was agreed that she was disabled, and that her complaint of harassment had been unable to continue in the light of the way the disciplinary proceedings were conducted. The tribunal had failed to address the 6(4)(a) question. The tribunal was wrong to dismiss the employer’s defence of justification on the sole grounds that they were ignorant of the Code, particularly where they had allowed for the need to make reasonable adjustments.
Held: Appeal remitted to the same tribunal.
EAT Disability Discrimination – Direct
His Hon Judge Clark
EAT/1087/00, [2001] UKEAT 1087 – 00 – 0510
Disability Discrimination Act 1996 6(4)(a)
England and Wales
See Also – Johnson and Johnson Medical Ltd v Filmer EAT 12-Mar-2001
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.171605
A chairman of an Industrial Tribunal acting alone had a mandatory obligation to consider whether the decision he was asked to make must be remitted to a full panel. Still, a failure to make such a consideration was an irregularity which did not go as to his jurisdiction to make the decision, and so the decision made in the absence of such consideration stood.
The Honourable Mr Justice Charles
Times 11-Nov-1999, Gazette 01-Dec-1999, EAT/1115/98, [2000] IRLR 224, [1999] UKEAT 1115 – 98 – 0111
Employment Tribunals Act 1996 4(3)
Cited – James Dressel v Partnership Housing Ltd EAT 19-Mar-2003
EAT The appellant challenged the decision of the tribunal in that the chairman had sat alone despite the existence of a condition under s5 requiring him to consider acting with a panel.
Held: The chairman . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.171425
EAT Redundancy – Fairness
Mr Recorder Langstaff QC
EAT/1253/99, [2000] EAT 1253 – 99 – 1301
Cited – Regina v British Coal Corporation, Ex Parte Price and Others QBD 28-May-1993
British Coal had the power to close coal mines once the unions had been consulted. The court gave guidance on the extent of consultation necessary.
Held: Fair consultation will involve consultation while consultations are at a formative stage; . .
See Also – Hailwood v Best Power Technology Ltd EAT 29-Sep-2000
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.171402
A defect of the consultation procedure in a redundancy which could make a dismissal unfair, was capable in some circumstances of being corrected by the company in its appeal procedure. The appellant had not originally been informed of the criteria for selection for redundancy, but having been informed, and that defect was cured in the appeal procedure. In this respect redundancy situations are not different from others.
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Procedural Fairness
His Honour Judge Peter Clark
Gazette 08-Dec-1999, EAT/1116/98, [1999] IRLR 782, [1999] UKEAT 1116 – 98 – 0107
Cited – Regina v British Coal Corporation, Ex Parte Price and Others QBD 28-May-1993
British Coal had the power to close coal mines once the unions had been consulted. The court gave guidance on the extent of consultation necessary.
Held: Fair consultation will involve consultation while consultations are at a formative stage; . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.171642
EAT Race Discrimination – Jurisdiction
EAT Race Discrimination – Jurisdiction.
His Honour Judge Peter Clark
EAT/1410/00, [2001] UKEAT 1410 – 00 – 2011
England and Wales
See Also – Dr H Platt, NHS Executive HQ, Department Of Health v R Chaudhary and Others, R Chaudhary and others EAT 20-Dec-2001
The Authority and other respondents appealed a refusal to strike out the applicant’s claim as an abuse of process, on the basis that other proceedings were current between the same parties at another tribunal. Abuse of process is distinct from cause . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.171606
EAT Time Limits –
His Honour Judge Peter Clark
EAT/1383/98, [1999] UKEAT 1383 – 98 – 2009
England and Wales
See Also – Greenall v Stanley Leisure Plc EAT 17-Mar-1999
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.171689
The refusal of an employer to provide a reference to an employee who had left and claimed sex discrimination against the company could of itself and also found a claim for sex discrimination as victimisation. European regulations required the court to interpret our own regulations widely enough to comply with the European Regulations. The claim arose from employment even after it had ceased.
The Honourable Mr Justice Morison (President)
Times 03-Jun-1999, EAT/1332/95, [1999] UKEAT 1332 – 95 – 1905
Equal Treatment Directive (76/207/EEC)
At ECJ – Coote v Granada Hospitality Ltd ECJ 22-Sep-1998
coote_granadaECJ1998
The employer had refused to provide a reference after the claimant had left the company after making a sex discrimination claim. She said this was victimisation.
Held: The state has a duty to protect workers against retaliation after . .
Appeal from – Coote v Granada Hospitality Ltd ECJ 22-Sep-1998
coote_granadaECJ1998
The employer had refused to provide a reference after the claimant had left the company after making a sex discrimination claim. She said this was victimisation.
Held: The state has a duty to protect workers against retaliation after . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.171614
EAT Transfer of Undertakings – Transfer
EAT Transfer of Undertakings – Transfer.
The Honourable Mr Justice Charles
EAT/892/98, [1999] UKEAT 892 – 98 – 1609, [2000] IRLR 80
England and Wales
Cited – Tapere v South London and Maudsley NHS Trust EAT 19-Aug-2009
EAT CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT
Construction of term
The Employment Tribunal erred in construing the terms and conditions of employment as permitting the employer to transfer the employee to another . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.171692
The applicants were suspended from membership of the Labour party. As a result they were unable to stand for election as councillors. They alleged racial discrimination.
Held: The position as councillor fell within the Act, and the claim for discrimination had been properly allowed. The Act should be interpreted sufficiently widely to provide a remedy for the ill it sought to cure.
EAT Race Discrimination – Jurisdiction
The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President)
EAT/1386/00, [2001] UKEAT 1386 – 00 – 1004
England and Wales
See Also – Mcdonagh (Sued on Her Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Other Members of the Labour Party) v Z Ali H S Sohal EAT 10-Apr-2000
The applicants were suspended from membership of the Labour party. As a result they were unable to stand for election as councillors. They alleged racial discrimination.
Held: The position as councillor fell within the Act, and the claim for . .
Appealed to – Ali and Another v Triesman (McDonagh) CA 7-Feb-2002
The applicants sought selection as candidates for the Labour Party. The respondent asserted that such issues were not ones of employment, and therefore not covered by the Act, and appealed a finding of the EAT against them.
Held: Sawyer was . .
Cited – Tom Sawyer and All Other Members of the Labour Party v R Ahsan EAT 5-May-1999
EAT Race Discrimination – Jurisdiction . .
See Also – Mcdonagh (Sued on Her Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Other Members of the Labour Party) v Z Ali H S Sohal EAT 10-Apr-2000
The applicants were suspended from membership of the Labour party. As a result they were unable to stand for election as councillors. They alleged racial discrimination.
Held: The position as councillor fell within the Act, and the claim for . .
Appeal from – Ali and Another v Triesman (McDonagh) CA 7-Feb-2002
The applicants sought selection as candidates for the Labour Party. The respondent asserted that such issues were not ones of employment, and therefore not covered by the Act, and appealed a finding of the EAT against them.
Held: Sawyer was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.171805
EAT Unlawful Deduction from Wages –
EAT Unlawful Deduction from Wages – (no sub-topic).
Miss Recorder Slade QC
EAT/1098/00, [2001] UKEAT 1098 – 00 – 1203
s=See Also – Pendragon Plc (T/A Grantham Ford) v Bryant EAT 9-Nov-2000
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.171572
The employers appealed against findings that employees could claim constructive dismissal on a transfer of an undertaking simply because of a change in the employment conditions after the transfer.
Held: Neither the Regulations nor the Act created a new right beyond the preservation of existing rights. To found a case for constructive dismissal, the employee had to show that the alteration in his terms and conditions was such as to amount to a repudiation by the employer.
Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lord Justice Jonathan Parker and Sir Christopher Slade
Times 28-May-2002, Gazette 13-Jun-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 745, [2002] Emp LR 735, [2002] 2 CMLR 43, [2002] ICR 1063, [2002] IRLR 483
Transfer of Undertaking (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (SI 1981 No 1794) 5(5), Employment Rights Act 1996 95(1)(c)
England and Wales
Appeal from – Rossiter v Pendragon Plc EAT 9-Feb-2001
The claimant appealed a finding that he had not been constructively dismissed on a transfer of the undertaking in which he was employed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.171300
The claimant had been employed by the respondents. Having been injured he claimed under a long-term disability scheme underwritten by insurers. They discontinued payment, and the company dismissed him. He now claimed damages for breach of contract. The issue centered on whether his benefit was governed by the company handbook or the insurance policy.
Held: The handbook governed the contract, but incorporated the terms and benefits of the policy. The company had tried to contact him to discuss a return to work. They claimed to be entitled to treat his failure to reply as repudiatory of the contract. Though it is necessary for an employee to co-operate, the employer had concealed the true reason for the meetings requested, and the behaviour did not amount to repudiation.
Lord Justice Ward Lord Justice Potter And Mr Justice Bodey
[2002] EWCA Civ 508, [2002] IRLR 607, [2002] Emp LR 819
England and Wales
Cited – Villella v MFI Furniture Centres Limited 1999
. .
See Also – Briscoe v Lubrizol Ltd and Another CA 27-Oct-1999
Insurers underwriting a company’s permanent health insurance scheme had no duty of care directly to a company employee to ensure that his claim was processed properly. Their duty was owed to the company only. The employee was not a party to the . .
Cited – Mason v Huddersfield Giants Ltd QBD 15-Jul-2013
The claimant rugby league player complained of his dismissal under a clause allowing such for behaviour which might bring the club into disrepute. He had engaged in a celebratory evening out involving a naked run. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.171217
EAT Unlawful Deduction from Wages
The employees were part time school meals service assistants. Part timers’ rates were adjusted with a move to a base weekly hours from 39 to 37. The service had been out-sourced and then brought back in house. They were two TUPE transfers. The employer suggested that they left on one set of conditions and returned on the other.
Held: The decision was set aside. The tribunal had failed to address questions necessary to decide which set of terms applied.
EAT Unlawful Deduction from Wages – (no sub-topic).
The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (P)
EAT/330/01, [2002] UKEAT 330 – 01 – 1705
England and Wales
See Also – Ackinclose and others v Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council EAT 20-Sep-2004
EAT Unlawful Deduction from Wages . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.171289
Lord Marnoch and Lord Cameron of Lochbroom and Lord Nimmo Smith
[2000] ScotCS 309, [2001] IRLR 157
Scotland
Cited – Divine-Bortey v London Borough of Brent CA 14-May-1998
The claimant had brought and lost an action relating to his dismissal by the defendant, who now appealed against an order that he was not estopped from bring a second claim on a different basis namely race discrimination, disapplying the rule in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.169156
EAT Contract of Employment – Breach of Contract
The appellant had owned a company. She sold the shares to the second respondent in return for a position as a director. After dismissal she appealed several findings.
Held: The tribunal deciding an issue as to jurisdiction had pre-empted the job of the tribunal of making findings as to the date of commencement and termination of her employment. The decision could not stand. She sought further payments due under the contract for sale of the business. The tribunal had concluded it did not have jurisdiction to hear such a claim. That was in error. The payments were denied under the alleged termination of her employment, and so were within the jurisdiction of the tribunal. The claims for sex discrimination and victimisation were out of time, and no exceptional reasons could be found for extending the time for the claim.
The Honourable Mr Justice Holland
EAT/0346/01
Employment Rights Act 1996 94(1), Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994 3, Employment Tribunals Act 1996
England and Wales
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.168552
The English and Scottish peoples are recognised as separate racial groups. Discrimination on the basis that someone was English or Scottish was therefore discrimination for the purposes of the 1976 Act. Since Parliament had not amended or defined the concept of national origins when passing the 1976 Act, then in accordance with the principle in Barras v Aberdeen Steam Trawling and Fishing Company Limited, it should be presumed that Parliament intended the concept to have the same meaning as had been elucidated in their Lordships’ House.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom and Lord Marnoch and Lord Nimmo Smith
[2000] ScotCS 308, [2001] IRLR 150, [2001] SC 458
Employment Tribunals Act 1996 37, Race Relations Act 1976
Scotland
Applied – Barras v Aberdeen Steam Trawling and Fishing Co HL 17-Mar-1933
The court looked at the inference that a statute’s draughtsman could be assumed when using a phrase to rely on a known interpretation of that phrase.
Viscount Buckmaster said: ‘It has long been a well established principle to be applied in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.169155
The employee challenged the Employment Tribunal’s finding, upheld by the EAT, that he had not acted reasonably in refusing an offer of re-employment made by his employer.
Held: The appeal failed. Potter LJ said: ‘As was made clear in the Judgment of the EAT, (at paragraph 64) the various authorities referred to by the Tribunal (see paragraph 22 and 23 above) and Payzu -v- Saunders are apt to establish the following principles which (in a form which I have somewhat recast) were accepted as common ground between the parties. (i) It was the duty of Mr Wilding to act in mitigation of his loss as a reasonable man unaffected by the hope of compensation from BT as his former employer; (ii) the onus was on BT as the wrongdoer to show that Mr Wilding had failed in his duty to mitigate his loss by unreasonably refusing the offer of re-employment; (iii) the test of unreasonableness is an objective one based on the totality of the evidence; (iv) in applying that test, the circumstances in which the offer was made and refused, the attitude of BT, the way in which Mr Wilding had been treated and all the surrounding circumstances should be taken into account; and (v) the court or tribunal deciding the issue must not be too stringent in its expectations of the injured party. I would add under (iv) that the circumstances to be taken into account included the state of mind of Mr Wilding.’
Lord Justice Brooke, Potter LJ
[2002] EWCA Civ 349
England and Wales
Appeal from – Wilding v British Telecom Plc EAT 2-Apr-2001
EAT Disability Discrimination – Compensation . .
Cited – Payzu Limited v Saunders CA 1919
The innocent plaintiff buyers had been found to have failed to mitigate their damages because they had not accepted an offer from the defendant sellers (who were in breach of contract) to supply goods on cash terms, the contract having originally . .
Cited – F and G Cleaners v Saddington and Others EAT 16-Aug-2012
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Mitigation of loss
The Claimants worked for Respondent 1 who supplied window cleaning services under contract to a local authority. The contract was subject to a re-tendering process; . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.170001
Lord Johnston
[2001] ScotCS 168
Scotland
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168972
The employer appealed against a finding of unlawful deduction of wages.
Held: The words ‘any . . emolument’ includes overtime pay, which may be isolated from other contractual terms as to pay. An arrangement under which the employer had tried to defeat a claim for unpaid overtime, by redescribing the basic pay rate failed. The tribunal had advised counsel that a costs order might be made, but had not told the parties directly in order to avoid inhibiting their evidence. The defendant appealed a later wasted costs order. The tribunal had done no more than to have indicated its view that presentation to it of matters of complaint which had never been put to the claimant, could only be a waste of time, since they could not be considered by the tribunal. Nothing had been done to indicate that the tribunal had a closed mind.
His Honour Judge Peter Clark
EAT/0031/00, [2002] EAT 0031 – 00 – 1803, [2002] UKEAT 0031 – 00 – 1803
Employment Rights Act 1996 13(3) 27(1)(a), Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 1993 Sch 1 12(1)
England and Wales
See Also – Pendragon Plc v Nota EAT 16-Nov-2000
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168551
The University had employed the pursuer on terms that it was entitled ‘for good cause shown to terminate the appointment of the employee by giving three months’ notice in writing’. He claimed on two bases, first, a breach of the alleged express term not to terminate his employment except on good cause shown, and, secondly, a breach of an alleged implied term of trust and confidence consisting in an alleged failure to act fairly and reasonably in investigating whether good cause was shown. The issue before Lady Smith concerned the second basis of claim.
Held: She distinguished Johnson on the basis that the University was only entitled to terminate the claimant’s appointment by three months’ notice ‘for good cause shown’, and she held that this involved the implication that there should, before any dismissal, be a prior hearing and investigation, fairly conducted in accordance with a mutual duty of trust and confidence.
If before dismissal, whether actual or constructive, an employee has acquired a cause of action at law, for breach of contract or otherwise, that cause of action survives his subsequent unfair dismissal.
Lady Smith
[2002] ScotCS 28, [2002] IRLR 252
See also – King v The University Court of the University of St Andrews OHCS 3-Jul-2003
. .
See also – King v The University Court of the University of St Andrews OHCS 3-Jul-2003
. .
Cited – Eastwood and another v Magnox Electric plc; McCabe v Cornwall County Council and others HL 15-Jul-2004
The first claimants were long standing employees. Mr Eastwood fell out with his manager, who disciplined him using false statements. When Williams refused to provide a false statement he too was disciplined. Each claimed damages for the injury to . .
See also – King v University Court of the University of St Andrews OHCS 3-Jun-2005
. .
Cited – Botham v The Ministry of Defence QBD 26-Mar-2010
The claimant had been employed by the MOD. He was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct, and he was then placed on the list of persons unsuitable for work with children. He succeeded at the Tribunal in a claim for unfair and wrongful dismissal. . .
Cited – Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust SC 14-Dec-2011
The claimant had been employed as consultant surgeon. He had been dismissed in a manner inconsistent with the extress terms of his employment contract. He sought common law damages for the manner of his dismissal. The employer appealed.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168807
The college appealed a finding that the applicant who had been found to be disabled within the Act, but denied discrimination. They appealed the finding of the tribunal which had failed to identify whether the disability was mental or physical.
Held: There was sufficient evidence of impairment to constitute disability. The expert evidence was not conclusive, but the tribunal had cause to base its finding.
The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President)
EAT/585/00, [2001] UKEAT 585 – 00 – 1411, [2002] IRLR 185
Disability Discrimination Act 1995 5 6
England and Wales
Cited – J v DLA Piper UK Llp EAT 15-Jun-2010
EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Disability
Job offer to Claimant withdrawn allegedly as a result of her disclosing a history of depression – On a preliminary issue Tribunal holds that at the material time . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168403
The employee had been dismissed. She alleged that it was because of her pregnancy, and was automatically unfair. The employers, a firm of solicitors, alleged that it related to her standards of work.
Held: To establish sex discrimination a woman does not need to show that her pregnancy was the only cause, or even the main cause, of her being dismissed; it is enough if it was an effective cause. The Tribunal misdirected itself that the Appellant had to establish both the test for automatic unfair dismissal and the test for sex discrimination, and the reasons had failed to deal in sufficient detail with the factual disputes.
EAT Sex Discrimination – Inferring Discrimination
Mr Recorder Underhill QC
EAT/0381/00, [2001] UKEAT 0381 – 00 – 0609
Applied – O’Neill v Governors of St Thomas More Roman Catholic Voluntary Aided Upper School EAT 7-Jun-1996
The dismissal by a Roman Catholic school of a teacher who was pregnant by a priest, was on the grounds of pregnancy, and for an inadmissible reason. The pregnancy was an effective cause of the adverse treatment of the Appellant by her employer. . .
See Also – Martin v Goldsobel EAT 9-Jun-2000
. .
Cited – Lewis Woolf Griptight Ltd v Corfield EAT 25-Mar-1997
The applicant succeeded on her claim of sex discrimination even though her pregnancy was not the principal reason for her dismissal (and therefore the claim for automatic unfair dismissal failed). . .
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.
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168321
The claimant sought repayment of sums he claimed were unlawfully deducted from his salary. He had been off sick for an extended period, and had been paid only half salary. He said that the injury was a qualifying industrial accident. Medical evidence suggested it related back to degeneration which started before he had begun to work there. The contract of employment had two schemes for payment of sick pay which fell to be reconciled. In fact the tribunal, in dismissing his claim had correctly judged the schemes, and if they had taken the view of the cause of the injury asserted by the claimant, his rights might well have been reduced.
EAT Contract of Employment – Breach of Contract
EAT Contract of Employment – Breach of Contract.
His Honour Judge J R Reid QC
EAT/0482/00, [2001] UKEAT 0482 – 00 – 1110
England and Wales
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168349
The claimant had had mixed success in claims for race discrimination, but appealed orders to pay to the costs of the respondents. She claimed to be impecunious and that that should have been taken into account before deciding whether a costs order should be made against her. Should a costs sanction be available to restrain the vexatious litigant whether poor or not?
Held: The tribunal should look at neither party’s means to decide whether a costs order should be made. The restriction on awards of costs unless for misbehaviour remains an appropriate protection of a litigant, and a tribunal does not have the facility to investigate means. The extension of the rules to allow awards for misbehaviour of representatives supported this view. Earlier case law not having dealt with this point at this level the court was free to make its own choice in the matter.
Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Chadwick and Mr Justice Charles
Times 12-Apr-2002, Gazette 10-May-2002, [2002] Emp LR 940, [2002] ICR 919, [2002] IRLR 414
Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 1993 (1993 No 2687) 12
England and Wales
Cited – M J Benyon and others v David Scadden and others EAT 14-Jun-1999
The tribunal had found that the claimants and their union had pursued their case, even though they recognised the weakness of the case, with the additional intention of persuading their employer to recognise their union, UNISON. Such behaviour was . .
Appeal from – Dr I Kovacs v Queen Mary and Westfield College, the Royal Hospital NHS Trust EAT 1-Dec-2000
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal. . .
See Also – Kovacs v Queen Mary and Westfield College and Another CA 18-Dec-2001
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168540
The Force appealed findings of sex discrimination against the respondent who had undergone gender reassignment. She required the fact of the procedure to be kept secret. The force refused her application for appointment since they said she would be unable to conduct searches, which were required in law to be by officers of the same sex as the person to be searched. She asserted that others would be able to conduct such searches.
Held: The force had treated the applicant in the same way they would have dealt with a female to male gender assignee. The Act was clearly not intended to cope with these issues, but it must do so. It appeared implicit from the Tribunal’s decision that the Force could be required to hold the applicant out to detainees and members of the public as female, when in law she remains a male. The tribunal erred. Adjusting to the applicant’s requirements would be require unacceptable alterations, and the applicants requirements as to privacy were conflicting. However the incidence of physical searches was so low as to be not relevant.
EAT Sex Discrimination – Direct
The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President)
EAT/231/00, EAT/661/99, [2002] ICR 552, [2001] UKEAT 661 – 99 – 0210
Sex Discrimination Act 1975 7, Sex Discrimination (Gender Reassignment) Regulations 1999
England and Wales
Cited – Chessington World of Adventures Ltd v Reed EAT 27-Jun-1997
News Group Newspapers Ltd had been joined as a party, in order that it could argue the obvious public interest relating to the importance, which has long been accepted in the courts, of the interest, not just of the press but of the public . .
Cited – Corbett v Corbett (otherwise Ashley) FD 1-Feb-1970
There had been a purported marriage in 1963 between a man and a male to female trans-sexual.
Held: Because marriage is essentially a union between a man and a woman, the relationship depended on sex, and not on gender. The law should adopt the . .
Appeal from – A v Chief Constable of the West Yorkshire Police and Another CA 5-Nov-2002
The appellant had undergone a male to female sex change, but was refused employment by the respondent before the Human Rights Act came into effect.
Held: Although the Human Rights Act could not apply, the act was in breach of the Equal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168330
EAT Race Discrimination – Direct
The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President)
EAT/851/99, [2002] UKEAT 851 – 99 – 0602, [2002] IRLR 776
England and Wales
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 . .
Followed – Transport for London and Another v Aderemi EAT 4-Nov-2011
EAT RACE DISCRIMINATION
Direct and Victimisation
Burden of Proof
The Employment Tribunal conflated the two concepts of firstly less favourable treatment and secondly whether there was a prima facie . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168492
The Authority and other respondents appealed a refusal to strike out the applicant’s claim as an abuse of process, on the basis that other proceedings were current between the same parties at another tribunal. Abuse of process is distinct from cause of action estoppel, and issue estoppel, but has in common that litigation should be final and a party should not be twice vexed in the same matter.
Held: The chairman was in error. A tribunal could add an amendment to a claim raising matters occurring after the claim had been issued despite earlier cases to the contrary. It was not clear that the matters raised in the new proceedings could properly be tried as part of the proceedings in the other tribunal, and accordingly the new proceedings were not an abuse of process.
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal
His Honour Judge Peter Clark
EAT/1101/00, EAT/1100/00, [2001] UKEAT 1100 – 00 – 2012
England and Wales
Applied – Johnson v Gore Wood and Co HL 14-Dec-2000
Shareholder May Sue for Additional Personal Losses
A company brought a claim of negligence against its solicitors, and, after that claim was settled, the company’s owner brought a separate claim in respect of the same subject-matter.
Held: It need not be an abuse of the court for a shareholder . .
See Also – Chaudhary v The Specialist Training Authority of the Medical Royal Colleges and 8 others EAT 20-Nov-2001
EAT Race Discrimination – Jurisdiction
EAT Race Discrimination – Jurisdiction. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168490
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Appeal Tribunal.
Mr Commissioner Howell QC
EAT/0984/01, EAT/0983/01, [2002] UKEAT 0983 – 01 – 1601
England and Wales
See Also – A Hawwari v British Broadcasting Corporation, G Mclellan EAT 2-Oct-2000
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal . .
See Also – Hawwari v British Broadcasting Corporation and others EAT 15-Sep-1999
. .
See Also – Hawwari v British Broadcasting Corporation and others EAT 18-Oct-1999
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168476
A senior director of the football club had been dismissed. He succeeded in a claim for unfair dismissal. The club appealed.
Held: The papers disclosed no perverse finding sufficient to justify setting the decision aside. Claims that he had entered into secret contracts which would in any event had justified his dismissal had not been taken at the Tribunal, and could not be raised on appeal.
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Appeal Tribunal
His Honour Judge Peter Clark
EAT/0464/00, [2001] UKEAT 0464 – 00 – 0410
England and Wales
See Also – Chester City Football Club Ltd v Wingrove EAT 28-Feb-2001
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168359
EAT Sex Discrimination – Direct
The Honourable Mr Justice Wall
EAT/372/00, [2002] UKEAT 372 – 00 – 2501
England and Wales
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.
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168498