The Claimants were police officers in their 40s who were disabled under Equality Act 2010 and in possession of ‘H1 certificates’ which allowed them immediate access to ‘deferred pension’ on leaving the police.
They left the force under the police ‘voluntary exit scheme’ (analogous to a redundancy scheme) and their ‘compensation lump sums’ were capped at six months’ pay, when they would otherwise have received 21 and 18 months’ respectively, because they were in immediate receipt of ‘deferred pension’.
The Claimants brought successful claims against the Chief Constable on the basis that capping the compensation lump sums was discriminatory under section 15 Equality Act.
On appeal the EAT upheld the decision of the ET on each of the three issues on which the ET had found in favour of the Claimants:
(1) capping the compensation lump sum was clearly ‘unfavourable treatment’; there was no reason to bring into account the ‘deferred pension’ which they also received on leaving the force in considering the relevant treatment; and Williams v Trustees of Swansea University Pension and Assurance Scheme [2018] UKSC 65 was distinguishable in that the relevant treatment in that case was classified as ‘the award of a pension’ which could not be said to be unfavourable, as opposed to ‘capping the compensation lump sum’, which clearly could;
(2) possession of H1 certificates (which was the cause of the immediate receipt of deferred pension and therefore the decision to cap the compensation lump sum) was clearly ‘something arising in consequence of [their] disability’ since the certificates were based on exactly the same impairments as the (admitted) Equality Act disabilities;
(3) on the material put before the ET by the Chief Constable he had not established that the unfavourable treatment was justified under section 15(1)(b) of Equality Act; the financial material did not show that the Claimants would receive more from the full compensation lump sum than they would receive in earnings by remaining with the police to retirement age as in Kraft Foods UK Ltd v Hastie [2010] ICR 1355; the mere fact that they were in immediate receipt of the ‘deferred pension’ was not sufficient to establish that the compensation lump sum amounted to a windfall and the Chief Constable had not advanced or provided the material necessary to support any other case (see Loxley v BAE Land Systems Munitions and Ordinance Ltd [2008] ICR 1348).

Citations:

[2020] UKEAT 0143 – 18 – 2502

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.649246

Judges:

His Honour Judge Eyre QC

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 1359 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.642058

Application for permission to appeal

Judges:

Pill LJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 1071

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.465101

EAT Unfair Dismissal – A Tribunal does not necessarily err in law if it proceeds with a hearing and makes findings of fact adverse to a respondent where a claimant does not attend and is not available for cross examination. Rules 14 and 27 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure considered.

Judges:

Richardson J

Citations:

[2012] UKEAT 0517 – 11 – 1910, [2013] ICR D5

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 Sch 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.465068

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Postponement or stay
The Tribunal wrongly refused an application for postponement on medical grounds:
(1) It did not have regard to medical evidence, to which the Claimant referred it and which existed within the hearing bundle, confirming that he had been diagnosed with depression, given counselling and treated with anti-depressant medication,
(2) It did not apply guidance given in Teinaz v London Borough of Wandsworth [2002] ICR 1471; in the circumstances it should have adjourned for a short period to enable the Claimant to seek medical advice.

Judges:

David Richardson J

Citations:

[2012] UKEAT 0186 – 12 – 0709

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Teinaz v London Borough of Wandsworth CA 16-Jul-2002
The claimant applied for an adjournment of his application. The tribunal suspected the basis of his medical certificate, and, refusing the adjournment, proceeded in his absence. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed an appeal, and the employer now . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.465067

EW

EAT Victimisation Discrimination : Protected Disclosure – Employment Tribunal, by a majority decision, found that the First Respondent had committed an act of racial victimisation against the Claimant and awarded the Claimant compensation including interest in the sum of andpound;4,021.67 for injury to feelings. Appeal allowed on basis findings of fact made by majority that the First Respondent had failed to properly investigate allegations of victimisation and race discrimination perverse. EAT agreed with view of the Employment Judge set out in his minority judgment. In addition the majority misapplied the law as it relates to victimisation. Failure by ET to explain basis on which conclusions reached.

Judges:

Supperstone J

Citations:

[2012] UKEAT 0624 – 11 – 1807

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.464950

EAT Practice and Procedure : Imposition of Deposit – Employment Tribunal ordered that Claimant pay a deposit of andpound;250 as a condition of being permitted to continue to take part in proceedings relating to his claim that he was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against on grounds of age.
Appeal dismissed.
(1) Rule 18(2) of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004, read together with rule 14, permits an ET determining whether a deposit shall be paid to consider evidence, written or oral, if and to the extent it is appropriate to do so.
(2) The test on a deposit application is as set out in rule 20(1). The approach of Elias P in Von Rensburg followed.
(3) There was no basis for the allegation that the procedure adopted at the PHR was unfair.

Judges:

Supperstone J

Citations:

[2012] UKEAT 0567 – 11 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 18(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.464951

EAT TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS – Service provision change – The Claimant solicitor worked in-house for a facilities management company which ran into financial difficulties. In consequence she was engaged in disposing of service contracts to third parties. Administrators were appointed, who had previously engaged the Appellant as solicitors to act for them in the administration. Their work in doing so involved disposing of the company’s contracts. The Claimant, who had been purportedly made redundant five days after the administration began, argued that there had been a service provision charge. An Employment Tribunal at preliminary hearing agreed with her. Since then, two decisions (Key2Law and Edenwest) had supported the Appellant’s submissions that the identity of the ‘client’ before and after the SPC had to be one and the same, and that it could not be said that the statutory provision that administrators acted as agents of the company in exercising their functions meant that the client for whom the services were provided was the company, rather than just the Appellant.
Held: there had been no service provision change. ET overruled.

Judges:

Langstaff J P

Citations:

[2012] UKEAT 0158 – 12 – 1007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.464725

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL
Reinstatement/re-engagement
Polkey deduction
Where the parties are requested or permitted to make written submissions to the Employment Tribunal following a remedies hearing, the assessment of practicability of re-engagement is to be judged on the basis that an order would take effect after such submissions have been made. Accordingly, applying and adapting the approach explained by Underhill P in Great Ormond Street Hospital v Miss Patel UKEAT/0085/07/LA at paragraph 27(1), in such circumstances, in practice practicability is to be judged after such submissions are made to the Employment Tribunal. The ET erred in failing to judge practicability of re-engagement as at a date after submission of material after the conclusion of the remedies hearing. Appeal allowed. Decision not to make an order for re-engagement set aside and the application for an order for re-engagement remitted for re-hearing. Allowing the conditional cross-appeal, the Respondent is permitted to advance an argument on impracticability by reason of alleged lack of confidence of the Claimant in the Respondent, an issue raised in post-hearing submissions. Unconditional Polkey cross appeal dismissed.

Judges:

Slade J

Citations:

[2012] UKEAT 0402 – 11 – 1010

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.464796

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs
Three grounds of appeal, disparate in nature, arising out of a costs order.
The Tribunal’s reasons for not taking the Claimant’s means into account apparently left out of consideration her witness statement to the effect that she had no savings or investments; remitted for Tribunal to take this factor into account.
In all other respects, appeal dismissed.

Judges:

David Richardson J

Citations:

[2012] UKEAT 0182 – 12 – 3008

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.464611

EAT Practice and Procedure : Time for Appealing – The Claimant failed to include the Employment Tribunal judgment and reasons in his last minute Notice of Appeal and gave no explanation at a hearing for this failure. Discretionary extension was refused as this was not an exceptional case.

Judges:

McMulen QC

Citations:

[2012] UKEAT 1928 – 11 – 1608

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.464610

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL
Reasonableness of dismissal
Contributory fault
Hospitality manager summarily dismissed for gross misconduct. Single incident of failure to check a booking sheet leading to a complaint from a customer about service provided at the booked event. Both the dismissing manager and an appeals officer rely on that incident, and no other prior matter, as justifying dismissal.
Employment Tribunal find summary dismissal would normally be outside the range of reasonable responses but that the employee had previous written and verbal warnings for capability arising out of similar circumstances. It decides that given those additional matters, dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. In the alternative, that those matters taken together with the incident gave rise to 100% contribution to own dismissal. Appeal allowed.
The ‘reason’ for dismissal with which section 98(4) and section 123(6) ERA are concerned is the employer’s actual reason for dismissal not the reasons for which the employee might otherwise have been dismissed. The employers having disavowed the previous matters as having formed part of their reason for dismissing, it was not permissible for the Tribunal to substitute a reason or supply an additional reason which the employer had not in fact adopted at the time.
Claim for UD upheld. Assessment of remedy remitted to same Tribunal.

Judges:

Luba QC

Citations:

[2012] UKEAT 0054 – 12 – 3105

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.464557

EAT Jurisdictional Points : Continuity of Employment
Section 212(3)(b) ERA – temporary cessation of employment – Bentley Engineering v Crown [1976] ICR 225 considered and applied. Appeal by Claimant allowed. Continuity preserved.

Judges:

Peter Clark J

Citations:

[2012] UKEAT 0558 – 11 – 1307

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.464415

EAT Practice and Procedure : Amendment
The decision by an Employment Judge to refuse permission to amend an ET1 could not be faulted, as it was a decision well within the ambit of her discretion and she had made no error of law.

Judges:

Serota QC J

Citations:

[2012] UKEAT 0189 – 12 – 2009

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.464402

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Claim in time and effective date of termination
There was no basis for interfering with the decision of the Employment Judge that the Claimant’s claims for discrimination on grounds of age or race were presented out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time.

Judges:

Serota QC

Citations:

[2012] UKEAT 0633 – 11 – 2109

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.464416

EAT Practice and Procedure : New evidence on appeal
Review
The Respondent appealed against a decision refusing its application for adjournment in a case where Claimant had alleged victimisation. Respondent wished to call witnesses but the Employment Tribunal held that there was no proper explanation as to why the Respondent had not arranged to call them earlier. The Employment Tribunal refused applications to review its decision. The Respondent appealed and also sought to adduce fresh evidence pursuant to the principles in Ladd v Marshall.

Judges:

Silber J

Citations:

[2012] UKEAT 0548 – 05 – 1909

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.464401

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL
Automatically unfair reasons
Reinstatement/re-engagement
TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS – Economic technical or organizational reason
Six months after a TUPE transfer the Respondent began a process of cost savings which included a request for voluntary redundancies and wage cuts. The Claimants were told during this that their jobs were safe. They would not sign new contracts with up to 18 per cent wage cuts and were dismissed. They then agreed new contracts and continued in employment and sued for unfair dismissal. The Employment Tribunal held the reason for the dismissals was connected with the transfer and was for an ETO but it did not entail changes in the workforce. The time for achieving reduced numbers of staff had passed by the time of these dismissals. The change was to effect harmonisation. It also found the dismissals unfair on procedural grounds. It awarded re-engagement, which was practicable. These were permissible findings and the employer’s appeals were dismissed.

Judges:

McMullen QC

Citations:

[2012] UKEAT 0642 – 11 – 0907

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.464251

EAT Unfair Dismissal : Constructive Dismissal – The Claimant resigned in response to a grievance decision which she found unsatisfactory. The grievance had involved a number of matters, including alleged bullying (which the Employment Tribunal found was a figment of her imagination) and a failure to pay contractual sick pay (which the Employment Tribunal had found was a repudiatory breach of contract). The Employment Tribunal found that the principal reason for the resignation was the alleged bullying and not the sick pay matter and rejected a claim of constructive dismissal.
The appeal succeeded: applying the Meikle case [2005] ICR 1 it was clear that the Employment Tribunal had been wrong to look for the ‘principal reason’.
There were sufficiently clear findings of fact in the remainder of the judgement for the EAT to find that a reason for the resignation was the sick pay matter and to substitute a finding of unfair constructive dismissal.

Judges:

Shanks J

Citations:

[2012] UKEAT 0069 – 12 – 1907

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.464250

EAT Jurisdictional Points : Extension of Time: Reasonably Practicable – The Appellant (Respondent below) maintained that the Employment Judge had applied the wrong test in extending time for an unfair dismissal claim. In so far as he had applied the wrong test, he had applied too stringent a test by requiring the Claimant to have presented the claim as soon as reasonably practicable rather than within a reasonable time of the expiry of the initial three month period; otherwise, the Judge’s conclusions, although perhaps surprising, were based on findings of fact which were open to him on the evidence. The appeal was therefore dismissed notwithstanding the non-attendance of the Claimant at the hearing.

Judges:

Shanks J

Citations:

[2012] UKEAT 0291 – 12 – 2307

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.464252

EAT Practice and Procedure : Admissibility of Evidence – CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Notice and pay in lieu
Disability related discrimination
Direct disability discrimination
Reasonable adjustments
Without prejudice negotiations, not leading to a compromise agreement, revealed in evidence through questioning by an Employment Tribunal lay member. Subsequently, unfair dismissal compensation reduced by 50 per cent for the chance that a compromise agreement would have been reached but for the dismissal. That reduction set aside. No waiver of privilege. ET’s must not investigate without prejudice discussions absent clear waiver by both parties.
ET awarded both loss of earnings from EDT and pay in lieu of notice. Double recovery. Award reduced accordingly.
ET permissibly found that Respondent did not have necessary knowledge, actual or imputed, to found complaints of direct, disability-related (not pursued below) and failure to make reasonable adjustments.

Judges:

Peter Clarke J

Citations:

[2012] UKEAT 0586 – 10 – 1907, [2013] IRLR 23, [2012] Eq LR 998

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.464248

EAT Practice and Procedure : Postponement or Stay – The Employment Tribunal fixed a hearing for 23/4/12 to 1/5/12. On the eve of the hearing the parties were notified it was cancelled because no judge was available. On 1/5/12 the ET sent out new dates, 28/8/12 to 5/9/12; the parties had not been asked for dates to avoid. On 9/5/12 the Respondent applied for an adjournment and new dates on the basis that their most important witness had a longstanding wedding commitment overseas during the proposed hearing dates. This application was refused on the basis that points made by the Claimant in a letter were well-founded; in particular she stated that the Respondent had other witnesses and did not require the witness in question. On analysis the Claimant’s points were not well-founded and the ET had therefore taken into account irrelevant matters in refusing the adjournment and the Respondent’s appeal must be allowed. Because of the imminence of the proposed hearing date the EAT itself decided the adjournment application and allowed it.

Judges:

Shanks J

Citations:

[2012] UKEAT 0361 – 12 – 2507

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.464253

EAT Jurisdictional Points : Worker, Employee or Neither – The Claimant was a taxi driver working with the Respondent company under written terms. The Employment Tribunal decided he was not an employee. The EAT upheld the decision because the written terms did not require any minimum or reasonable amount of work from him; he was free to work or not to work. Nor in the circumstances was there scope for inferring such an obligation from the fact that the Claimant in fact worked 7 days a week.

Judges:

Shanks J

Citations:

[2012] UKEAT 0075 – 12 – 1007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.464249

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Time for appealing
JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Excluded employments
The Claimant, a former soldier, resigned and claimed constructive unfair dismissal and breach of contract in the Employment Tribunal. It declined jurisdiction: Employment Rights Act 1996 ss191-2 disapply the Act to the armed forces. The Claimant received clear legal advice to that effect but 9 months later he thought that advice was wrong as service women had obtained justice for equal pay and sex discrimination. The Registrar refused to exercise discretion to extend time to appeal. The appeal from the Registrar was dismissed. This was a case with no merit so there were no grounds to extend time.

Judges:

McMullen QC J

Citations:

[2012] UKEAT 1821 – 11 – 1907

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.464247

EAT VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Protected disclosure
Tribunal entitled to decide on the facts that the employee’s belief that his disclosure tended to show matters of the kind specified under section 43B (1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was not reasonable.

Judges:

Underhill P J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0167 – 10 – 2406

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

e Employment Rights Act 1996 43B(1) 48(1A)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.425004

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Constructive dismissal
Employment Tribunal entitled to conclude, on their findings of fact, that Claimant had resigned from the employment in circumstances which did not amount to constructive dismissal and had not been dismissed by his employer.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0069 – 10 – 2406

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.421012

Citations:

[1998] UKEAT 1027 – 98 – 0712

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.207054

EAT Practice and Procedure – Application/Claim.

Judges:

His Hon Judge D Serota QC

Citations:

[2003] EAT 0251 – 03 – 0409, [2003] UKEAT 0251 – 03 – 0409, EAT/251/03

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.191798

staff cases

Citations:

T-142/00, [2001] EUECJ T-142/00, ECLI:EU:T:2001:268

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Employment

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.173840

The appellant’s employment had terminated in circumstances where he had threatened to publicise matters about the defendant’s activities, but had failed to co-operate with the company in investigating his allegations by particularising them.
Held: The appeals were misconceived and bound to fail. Leave to appeal was refused.

Judges:

Waite LJ, Singer J

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 859

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Vickerstaff v Edbro Plc EAT 23-Jun-1994
The claimant appealed against refusal of an order for discovery. He had wanted to disclose what he thought were illegal activities by the firm. He said that he had been dismissed for that reason and that disclosure was required for him to establish . .
See Also – Vickerstaff v Edbro Plc EAT 8-Mar-1995
The claimant had made separate complaints of unfair dismissal, and under the 1986 Act. He now appealed an order combining the two cases. The respondent alleged that there were common issues of law and fact.
Held: The decision was one for the . .
Appeal from – Vickerstaff v Edbro Plc EAT 22-May-1996
The claimant having failed in his claim for unfair dismissal, wanted to claim against the tribunal and appeal tribunal alleging a conspiracy against him. The hearing had been heard in private to which he had objected. He wanted to go straight to the . .
Cited – Initial Services Ltd v Putterill CA 1967
The plaintiff’s sales manager resigned, but took with him confidential documents which he gave to a newspaper. The defendant sought to justify this, saying that the company had failed to register agreements it should have done under the Act.
Cited – Faccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler CA 1986
Nature of Confidentiality in Information
The appellant plaintiff company had employed the defendant as sales manager. The contract of employment made no provision restricting use of confidential information. He left to set up in competition. The company now sought to prevent him using . .

Cited by:

See Also – Edbro Plc v Vickerstaff CA 22-May-1998
Order dismissing appeal where the appellant had failed to appear or notify the court of why he was not doing so. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.141255

Casual workers employed under ‘nil hours’ relationship still had a contract of employment and the appropriate and associated rights. A court was fully able to determine the terms of the contract.

Citations:

Times 02-Apr-1998, Gazette 13-May-1998, [1997] EWCA Civ 871, [1999] ICR 1226, [1998] EWCA Civ 558, [2000] IRLR 43

Statutes:

Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Carmichael and Another v National Power Plc EAT 25-Apr-1996
. .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Carmichael and Another v National Power Plc HL 24-Jun-1999
Tour guides were engaged to act ‘on a casual as required basis’. The guides later claimed to be employees and therefore entitled by statute to a written statement of their terms of employment. Their case was that an exchange of correspondence . .
Cited – Liffe Administration and Management v Pinkava and Another CA 15-Mar-2007
The employee had patented in the US a trading system he invented whilst employed by the defendant, who now sought ownership. He appealed a finding that the inventions had been made during the normal course of his employment. The employment contract . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.141267

The court considered whether a contract of employment for a solicitor was in a special class when considering the implication of restrictive covenants into an assistant solicitor’s contract. As to the solicitor’s connection: ‘The essential question is whether the solicitor is entitled to canvass clients of the firm. In doing so, the solicitor is indeed taking advantage of a professional connection with clients. But that connection is no different in principle form the trade connection that, for instance, a milk roundsman may acquire with his employer’s customers.’ (Leggatt LJ)
Potter LJ spoke of what kind of post employment restrictive covenants might be effective: ‘Since the employer plainly has an interest in retaining customers who are current or recent, an express non-solicitation covenant which is limited to customers with whom the ex-employee has had contact in the course of his employment and which is limited in time, is likely to be justifiable under the first head. However, the question of justification will always depend on the precise terms of the covenant, and evidence as to the nature of the business and the extent or reality of the customer connection.’

Judges:

Leggatt LJ, Potter LJ

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 973, [1997] IRLR 453

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Allan Janes Llp v Johal ChD 23-Feb-2006
The claimant sought to enforce a restrictive covenant against the defendant a former assistant solicitor as to non-competition within a certain distance of the practice for a period of three years. After leaving she had sought to set up partnership . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.141369

Action for annulment – Civil service – Officials – Internal Competition COM/1/AD 10/18 (AD 10) – Submission of the application using the form provided for that purpose and referred to in Article 2 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations – Request to be admitted to the competition, lodged at the same time and on a separate sheet of paper, to the Appointing Authority – Eligibility conditions – Decision of the selection board to reject the applicant’s application – Decision of the Appointing Authority refusing to grant the applicant’s request to set aside one of the conditions provided for in the notice of competition in order to admit him to the competition – Challenge of the decision of the Appointing Authority and not that of the selection board – Legal interest in bringing proceedings – Inadmissibility

Citations:

T-13/20, [2020] EUECJ T-13/20_CO, , ECLI:EU:T:2020:503

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Employment

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.660629

Civil service – Officials – Reimbursement of medical costs – Reimbursement ceiling for devices for sleep apnea – Action for annulment – Absence of a purely confirmatory act – Interest in bringing proceedings – Admissibility – Common rules relating to the coverage of the risks of human illness officials – General implementing provisions

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2020:609, T-736/19, [2020] EUECJ T-736/19

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Employment

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.660730

Appeal – Civil service – Members of the contract staff – European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) – Fixed-term contract – Decision not to renew – New decision adopted following an annulment by the General Court – Irregularities allegedly committed during the implementation of the General Court judgment

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2020:1048, C-601/19, [2020] EUECJ C-601/19P

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Employment

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.660698

Civil service – Officials – Remuneration – Corrective coefficient – Fixed allowance for functions – Housing costs – Obligation to state reasons – Duty of care – Equivalence of purchasing power – Equal treatment

Citations:

T-497/19, [2020] EUECJ T-497/19

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Employment

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.660115

Civil service – Competitions – Competition notice EPSO/AD/215/11 – Not included on the reserve list – Statement of reasons for a decision rejecting an application – Principle of equal treatment – Conflict of interests

Citations:

F-155/12, [2014] EUECJ F-155/12

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Employment

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.525417

Judges:

Cranston J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 1176 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.523797

EAT Appeal allowed by consent.

Judges:

McMullen QC J

Citations:

[2012] UKEAT 0057 – 12 – 2106

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463762

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason
JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Worker, employee or neither
Unfair dismissal. Removal of guaranteed payment causing employees’ resignations accepted by Tribunal to be for sound business reasons and not arbitrary. Tribunal held to have erred in law in failing to conclude that the Respondents had established that (constructive) dismissals were for some other substantial reasons and could only, in all the circumstances, be found to have been fair. Whilst Tribunal were correct to hold that removal of guaranteed payment would have changed Claimants’ status from that of employee to that of worker, that did not mean that there was no SOSR or that there was unfairness.

Judges:

Lady Smith J

Citations:

[2012] UKEAT 0032 – 11 – 0805

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463760

EAT VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Whistleblowing
The Claimant was a worker seconded to the Respondent. She was dismissed in circumstances giving rise to a claim for PIDA discrimination. The ET held that as the Respondent had failed to comply with the ACAS Code she was entitled to an uplift under section 207A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The appeal was allowed because claims under section 207A may only be made by employees, not by workers.

Judges:

Serota QC J

Citations:

[2012] UKEAT 0587 – 11 – 1906

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 207A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463764

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Amendment
An application to amend was made which the Employment Tribunal Judge had refused purely on the basis that it involved new claims; that was clearly wrong. She should have followed the procedure in Selkent v More [1996] ICR 836 at 842, this being an application which involved an amendment which was arguable and of substance and not clearly time barred.

Judges:

Shanks J

Citations:

[2012] UKEAT 0111 – 12 – 1207

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463766

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke
Inadequate Employment Tribunal reasons. Burns-Barke order made. Appeal adjourned.

Judges:

Peter Clark J

Citations:

[2012] UKEAT 0072 – 12 – 2806

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463763

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Striking-out/dismissal
The Claimant’s claims included disability discrimination claims arising out of anxiety and depression. The Claimant refused to co-operate with the obtaining of a psychiatric report by the Respondent, declining to attend any of three experts put forward by the Respondent, while obtaining his own psychiatric report. The Tribunal determined that his refusal was unjustified, but declined to stay or strike out the claim in any way, deciding that it would hear the claim with no expert psychiatric evidence on either side.
Held: the Tribunal erred in law. It should have applied the test in Lane v Willis [1972] I WLR 333; if it had done so it would have concluded that the Respondent, given the issues in this case, could not properly prepare its case without expert evidence – it was significantly disadvantaged without the opportunity to obtain such evidence. Order substituted of the kind suggested in Abegaze v Shrewsbury College of Arts and Technology [2010] IRLR 238.

Judges:

David Richardson J

Citations:

[2012] UKEAT 0373 – 12 – 0608

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Lane v Willis CA 1972
An order for the medical examination of a party to an action is an invasion of personal liberty, and and should only be granted when it is reasonable in the interests of justice so to order, and when the refusal of a medical examination is alleged . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463769

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL
The Claimant, a bus driver, accused of causing death by dangerous driving of his bus. Claimed race and disability discrimination in the way employer dealt with this. Due to attend criminal trial.
Employment Judge refused to postpone a hearing at Claimant’s request on ground that trial postponed, so preliminary hearing to consider question of disability should be too. Background of (claimed) serious depressive illness. Held that on basis of the material before him, EJ entitled to refuse postponement since holding a PH did not risk any breach of privilege against self-incrimination, and it was to consider disability only, and probably did not need the attendance of the Claimant personally.

Judges:

Langstaff P J

Citations:

[2012] UKEAT 0233 – 12 – 2305

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463759

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Review
JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Extension of time: reasonably practicable
The Claimant’s solicitor faxed an ET1 claiming unfair dismissal to the Tribunal more than 3 months after the effective date of termination. He said that he had sent an ET1 by post earlier, but the Tribunal had not received it. He did not attend a PHR convened for the purpose of determining whether the claim was out of time. The claim was held to be out of time. The Claimant’s solicitor applied for a review, saying that the notice of PHR was not on file.
Held: (1) The Employment Tribunal was entitled to refuse the review – reg 34(3)(b) and (c) and reg 61(2) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure considered.
(2) In any event the claim was out of time – if the Claimant’s solicitor wished, close to the 3 month deadline, to reply on post as opposed to fax or email, he should check whether the claim form has arrived by the deadline – Capital Foods Retail v Corrigan [1993] IRLR 430 applied.

Judges:

David Richardson J

Citations:

[2012] UKEAT 0149 – 12 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463768

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal
The employer, a Club, needed to make savings and decided that the role of club steward was no longer required. It dismissed the employee, the club steward, for redundancy. The Tribunal found that the dismissal was unfair, in particular because ‘no consideration was given to the possibility of establishing a pool from which any redundancies could be made’.
Held: section 98(4) required the Tribunal to consider whether it was reasonable for the club to focus upon the club steward as the employee potentially to be made redundant. Appeal allowed. Cases considered: Taymech Ltd v Ryan [1994] UKEAT/663/94, Capita Hartshead v Byard [2012] UKEAT/0445/11, and Halpin v Sandpiper Books Ltd [2012] UKEAT/0171/11.

Judges:

David Richardson J

Citations:

[2012] UKEAT 0190 – 12 – 1007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463687

Judges:

Sir Nicholas Wall P FD, Arden, Sullivan LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 1152

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463700

EAT CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Wrongful dismissal
The Claimant’s case of fundamental breach of contract failed as there was no ground for saying the incidents on which he relied in this lengthy set of proceedings in aggregate constituted such a breach.

Judges:

McMullen QC J

Citations:

[2012] UKEAT 0224 – 11 – 1104

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463679

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal
Dismissal of prison officer for gross misconduct, namely that he was ‘negligent in [his] duty in failing to take appropriate action when an incident occurred’, the ‘charge’ of which he was given notice being in the same terms and the incident being that another officer assaulted an inmate at the young offenders’ institution where they were both employed. The Employment Tribunal found as fact that the Claimant was not found guilty of or dismissed for deliberate and premeditated conduct. That finding was not appealed against as being perverse. Appeal on basis that the Tribunal had erred in its application of Strouthos v London Underground Ltd [2004] IRLR 635 dismissed as being misconceived. It proceeded on the basis that the Claimant had been dismissed for deliberate and premeditated conduct but that was not what had been found by the Tribunal nor was it what was demonstrated by the documentary evidence or the findings of the Tribunal on the evidence led.

Judges:

Lady Smith

Citations:

[2012] UKEAT 0032 – 12 – 1807

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Strouthos v London Underground Ltd CA 18-Mar-2004
The claimant had been dismissed after being accused of taking a staff car to France and having it impounded for suspected importation of cigarettes and alcohol above personal use limits.
Held: ‘It is a basic proposition, whether in criminal or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463681

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Constructive dismissal
A settled communicated intention to pay half rather than full pay was a fundamental breach of contract. The conclusion of the Employment Tribunal that the established breach was not fundamental because of an honest though mistaken view of the meaning of the relevant contractual term erroneously relied upon the judgment of an Employment Judge when that Judgment contained no such finding. On the findings of fact by the ET including that the Respondent had a settled intent to pay 50% of full pay no other conclusion could be reached other than the Respondent was in fundamental anticipating breach of contract. Case remitted to a differently constituted Employment Tribunal for rehearing on the basis that the anticipatory breach of contract by the Respondent was fundamental going to the root of the contract.

Judges:

Slade DBE J

Citations:

[2012] UKEAT 0070 – 12 – 1906

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463680

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Continuity of employment
Respondent failed to attend hearing of appeal and skeleton argument disclosed no grounds for a successful appeal. Although there may well have been good grounds, it was not for the EAT to carry out research and advance arguments the parties have not made, especially as neither party was present.

Judges:

Serota QC J

Citations:

[2012] UKEAT 0534 – 11 – 2606

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463516

EAT TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS – Transfer
TUPE. Service Provision Change. Whether Claimants (directors of the transferee company) were assigned to organised grouping of employees immediately prior to sole client taking service ‘in house’. Appeal on perversity grounds dismissed. It was plainly open to the Employment Judge, on the facts found, to conclude that neither Claimant had been assigned.

Judges:

Lady Smith

Citations:

[2012] UKEAT 0061 – 11 – 1007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463520

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Right to be heard
Absence of party
A preliminary hearing was summoned to determine whether claims that the Claimant had been discriminated against by being subject to a blacklist should be struck out against one or all of the five Respondents. On that basis, the Fourth Respondent did not attend. It did not anticipate that the hearing would resolve as a matter of fact whether there had been such a blacklist. However, the Employment Judge was asked by the parties present (the Claimant, and Respondents 1-3) to do so, since the existence of such a blacklist as defined by the Regulations was an essential precursor to a finding of liability against any Respondent. The Judge found against the Claimant, but on the basis of factual findings that might have been helpful to an appeal by the Claimant, and if so would prejudice the Fourth Respondent’s position.
Held: it was a material irregularity to proceed in a way that might materially affect a party to proceedings without allowing that party a proper opportunity to meet the case made against it. The only way to remedy it would be for the matter to be remitted for rehearing – and, since the case involved determination of facts and inference in a matter of discrimination, and the discretion to sit as a panel of three had not been exercised but there was every reason to do so and no compelling reason advanced to the contrary, remission would be to a panel of three, though with the same Judge presiding, to hear questions arising.

Judges:

Langstaff P J

Citations:

[2012] UKEAT 0490 – 11 – 2206

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463519

EAT CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Whether established
The Employment Judge correctly found that each of the Claimants was employed under a contract of employment which was global in nature. This being so, he also correctly found that each of the Claimants had the requisite continuity of employment.

Judges:

Richardson J

Citations:

[2012] UKEAT 0123 – 12 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463521

Judges:

Maurice Kay VP, Moore-Bick, Sullivan LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 1046

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463313

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Striking-out/dismissal
Amendment
Judgment entered following Claimant’s failure to comply with unless order. No application made to Employment Tribunal for relief from sanction. Appeal against Rule 13(2) Judgment only. No discretion in Employment Judge, who was bound to enter judgment. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
Late application to amend Notice of Appeal to challenge earlier ET unless order refused. Application not made as soon as reasonably practicable; original Notice of Appeal out of time to challenge earlier order. No grounds advanced for extending time.

Judges:

Peter Clark

Citations:

[2012] UKEAT 0055 – 12 – 0706

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463346

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Time for appealing
The Appellant tried to send scanned documents on appeal to the EAT on Day 41 but they were too big. So he sent an email to the EAT saying the Judgment and ET1 could be downloaded from TransferBIGFiles.com. He did not read, as he should have, the note on the EAT website saying this triangular system was not proper lodgement. He was entitled to think all had been lodged in time. Extension of time allowed in this exceptional case. Scanning a document radically increases its size beyond what fits the EAT website.

Judges:

McMullen QC J

Citations:

[2012] UKEAT 0007 – 12 – 2006

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463347

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Case management
The Employment Tribunal had refused a request for an adjournment but given inadequate reasons for doing so.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of the Employment Tribunal but in view of the imminence of the scheduled hearing went ahead and decided the application itself. The application for an adjournment refused on the basis that the evidence in relation to the party’s unfitness to attend was unsatisfactory.

Judges:

Shanks J

Citations:

[2012] UKEAT 0381 – 12 – 2407

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463351

EAT TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS – Consultation and other information
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Polkey deduction
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Disposal of appeal including remission
TUPE reg. 11 complaint by transferee against transferor not expressly dealt with by Employment Tribunal, but would inevitably fail on remission to ET for three separate reasons. Appellant prevented from arguing Polkey below; but no evidential basis for a Polkey deduction. Transferor correctly dismissed from proceedings once ET found, on the evidence, that a relevant transfer took place.
Dobie v Burns principle applied. Appeal dismissed.

Judges:

Peter Clark J

Citations:

[2012] UKEAT 0278 – 11 – 2706

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463158

EAT CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT
Whether established
Implied term/variation/construction of term
The Employment Tribunal erred in holding that the agreement reached between the Respondent and Trade Unions for the third year of a three year pay deal was not legally enforceable because it gave the employer two options for the pay increase to be awarded with no agreement as to which took precedence. The Employment Tribunal wrongly held that the agreement for the third year was an agreement to agree or to negotiate. The Employment Tribunal did not err in holding that on its construction the Collective Agreement did not provide a guarantee that the pay increase in the third year, 2009, would be no less than 2.5%. The Claimants’ appeal from the dismissal of their claims under section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for unlawful deduction of wages was dismissed.

Judges:

Slade J

Citations:

[2012] UKEAT 0505 – 11 – 1907

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463159

Opinion – EEC-Turkey Association Agreement – Interpretation of Association Council Decision No 1/80 – Right of residence of members of the family of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State – Thai national who has lived with the Turkish worker for at least five years – Rights acquired before delivery of the decree of divorce from the Turkish worker

Judges:

Bot AG

Citations:

C-451/11, [2012] EUECJ C-451/11 – O

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

See Also – Dulger v Wetteraukreis ECJ 19-Jul-2012
dulgerECJ2012
ECJ EEC-Turkey Association Agreement – Association Council Decision No 1/80 – Article 7, first paragraph – Right of residence of members of the family of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463206

EAT UNLAWFUL DEDUCTION FROM WAGES
The Claimant brought a claim under Part II ERA. She relied on a job evaluation which she said entitled her to a certain level of pay. The Employment Judge ruled that the claim was in effect a claim for damages and so outside the jurisdiction given by Part II. Although the basis of her claim was ambiguous, a sufficiently clear basis of claim to an existing entitlement had been advanced so as to bring it within the jurisdiction (at least on that basis) and the appeal succeeded to that extent.

Judges:

Shanks J

Citations:

[2012] UKEAT 0394 – 11 – 2607

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463177

The court was asked ‘what circumstances is a worker, who has not taken paid annual leave in the relevant leave year because of absence from work on long-term sick leave, entitled to a payment in lieu?’

Judges:

Mummery, Tomplinson LJJ, Henderson J

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 1034

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Working Time Regulations 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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.

Employment

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463152

The claimant sought damages and an injunction from their former employee, the defendant, saying that he had breached a post-employment restrictive covenant.
Held: The court upheld a 12-month non-solicitation clause. This was however a ‘borderline case’, the court stressing the complexity of negotiations, and the length of the period of time over which they were often conducted and the central and influential position held by the employee in question.

Judges:

Nicolas Strauss QC J

Citations:

[2000] EWHC 566 (QB), [2000] IRLR 227

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Associated Foreign Exchange Ltd v International Foreign Exchange (UK) Ltd and Another ChD 26-May-2010
The claimant sought interim injunctions to enforce a restrictive covenant against solicitation of customers in a former employee’s contract. The employee, a FOREX dealer, had been placed on garden leave for three months and then his contract . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.416385

Citations:

[2000] UKEAT 210 – 00 – 2505

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.265083

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Automatically unfair reasons
Trade Union Rights – Dismissal
The Claimant was dismissed when his employer took the view that he had fraudulently produced documents to excuse his prolonged absence in Pakistan. The Claimant was an FOC who contended his dismissal was on account of his trade union activities. The Tribunal found that the dismissal was automatically unfair as step one of the statutory procedure had not been followed. Although not necessary for its Judgment, it went on to decide that the reason for dismissal was conduct and not trade union activities and that the dismissal was unfair. But the Tribunal found that it was impossible for the Claimant on account of his trade union activities to receive a fair hearing. The Tribunal’s finding on the reason for dismissal was reversed since it was the logical conclusion that the reason for dismissal was trade union activities.

Judges:

McMullen QC J

Citations:

[2006] UKEAT 0411 – 06 – 2510

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.247812

EAT Practice and Procedure – Chairman alone. Whether owner of 50% of shares in company and director was employee and entitled to payment of arrears of pay on its insolvency.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Elias (President)

Citations:

[2006] UKEAT 0337 – 06 – 2510, UKEAT/0337/06, [2007] ICR 264

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Nesbitt v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry EAT 10-Aug-2007
EAT Contract of Employment – definition of employee
Insolvency
The Appellants were a husband and wife who entered into contracts of employment with a company which they managed and which they between . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.247816

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 800

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Connolly v Sellers Arenascene Ltd EAT 16-Feb-1995
The appellant challenged rejection of his claim of unfair dismissal. The Tribunal found that he had not been continuously employed by the respondent for two years. He had argued that there had been a transfer of undertaking by which he had been . .

Cited by:

See Also – Connolly v Sellers Arenascene Ltd EAT 14-Sep-1999
EAT Contract of Employment – Breach of Contract . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.141196

The applicant sought an extension of time to appeal against dismissal of his claim for unfair dismissal. The tribunal had ruled that his application was premature, since his fixed term contract had not yet expired, and that they therefore did not have jurisdiction.
Held: The appellant wished to argue that under section 55 and section 67(4) that he was free to present his case before the termination of the contract. This was an arguable point which should be allowed to proceed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Hirst

Citations:

[1996] EWCA Civ 1188

Statutes:

Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 55 67(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.141056

VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Whistleblowing
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Perversity
The Claimant was a worker employed by the Respondent on a temporary assignment. On 14 March 2017, the Respondent terminated the assignment with immediate effect. There had been a meeting the previous day between the Claimant and one of the Respondent’s managers. The Claimant had made several complaints at the meeting. He contended that they amounted to protected disclosures under Part IVA of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and that the Respondent’s subsequent actions amounted to unlawful detriments on the grounds of his having made those disclosures. The Employment Tribunal dismissed the Claimant’s claim, finding that no qualifying disclosures had been made at the meeting and, in the alternative, on the basis of causation. On appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal and held that:
The Employment Tribunal had not made perverse findings of fact regarding what the Claimant had disclosed to the Respondent at the meeting on 13 March 2017.
On the Employment Tribunal’s factual findings about what the Claimant disclosed in the meeting, there was no material error of law in its conclusion that the matters raised did not amount to qualifying disclosures attracting statutory protection.
The Employment Tribunal had erred in law in its approach to causation. Having found that the Respondent’s actions in subjecting the Claimant to the detriments complained of had been motivated in part by the Claimant’s attitude and behaviour during the meeting, it had failed to address the issue of whether that behaviour was separable from the making of any disclosures. However, given the Employment Tribunal’s finding that the complaints that it had found were made did not amount to qualifying disclosures, any such error was not material to the outcome.

Citations:

[2020] UKEAT 0133 – 19 – 1303

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.649255

The Claimant was dismissed by reason of conduct, arising from an allegation of inappropriate sexual behaviour towards a colleague in an alleged incident at a bar. Claims of unfair and wrongful dismissal failed, by majority decision of the Employment Tribunal. Claims of sex and age discrimination were dismissed unanimously. Three grounds of appeal proceeded to a full hearing. Grounds 1 and 3 related to unfair dismissal and, as to Ground 3, wrongful dismissal; Ground 4 to one aspect of the discrimination claims.
Ground 1 turned on the fact that the complainant had withdrawn a complaint to the police, but the manager who took the decision to dismiss, who knew that the complaint had been made, was not told that it had been withdrawn. The Tribunal majority concluded that this did not affect the fairness of the dismissal, because she could in any event have fairly dismissed, had the police complaint never been made. Given that (a) the dismissing officer took into account that the police complaint had been made; and (b) her evidence was that, had she been told that the complaint had later been withdrawn, she would have wanted to know why, the Tribunal erred in its approach. Given that the investigating officer knew that the police complaint had been withdrawn, but did not pass this on to the disciplining officer, and the gravity of the allegations, the only proper conclusion was that this rendered the dismissal unfair. Royal Mail v Jhuti [2019] UKSC 55 considered. Whether, had she known of the withdrawal of the police complaint, the disciplinary officer would, or might, have still fairly dismissed fell to be considered by the Tribunal at the remedy stage.
Ground 3 was to the effect, principally, that, as both the Claimant and complainant had been too drunk to have a clear recollection of what had occurred, and no-one else at the bar had witnessed the alleged incident itself, the majority should have found that there was no proper basis to find the Claimant guilty of the alleged conduct. However, the Tribunal majority properly so found, taking into account its appraisal of photographic evidence, said to be of the complainant’s injuries, and the totality of the evidence presented in the disciplinary process. The findings in relation to wrongful dismissal were also properly reached. This ground therefore failed.
Ground 4 challenged the Tribunal’s decision in relation to allegations of sex and age discrimination relating to aspects of the conduct of the investigating officer. However, the premise of this ground was that the Tribunal erred in not considering these allegations on a more wide-ranging basis than the complaints identified in a list of issues agreed at a Preliminary Hearing. However, the Tribunal had been right to confine itself to the complaints identified in that list of issues. This ground therefore also failed.

Citations:

[2020] UKEAT 0165 – 19 – 13023

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.649251

By agreement with the employees concerned, Middlesbrough Football Club made deductions from their wages in respect of the cost of season tickets. HMRC served enforcement notices on the basis that the deductions unlawfully took their pay below the national minimum wage (‘NMW’). The Employment Tribunal concluded that the proper construction of the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015 was that an exception applied to this arrangement, and these deductions therefore should not have reduced remuneration, for the purposes of the NMW calculation. It therefore rescinded the notices. HMRC further appealed to the EAT. The appeal was allowed and the enforcement notices reinstated.

Citations:

[2020] UKEAT 0234 – 19 – 2003

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.649254