Gover and others v Propertycare Ltd: CA 28 Mar 2006

The claimants appealed dismissal of their claims for unfair dismissal, on the basis that they had been substantially dismissed as sales agents after rejecting conditions imposed unilaterally by their employers. Their damages had been limited to the loss of the consultation period to which they would have been entitled.
Held: The appeal failed. The court noted that on the appeal the parties had sought to raise new points which had not been raised before the tribunal or the EAT, and nor on the notices of appeal, but rather on the morning of the court hearing. The jurisdiction was statutory, allowing an appeal on a point of law only. The new point was not to be allowed.


Buxton LJ, Lloyd LJ, Richards LJ


[2006] EWCA Civ 286, Times 01-May-2006, [2006] 4 All ER 69




Employment Tribunals Act 1996 37(1)


England and Wales


See AlsoPropertycare Ltd v T Gower and others EAT 14-Nov-2003
EAT Contract of Employment – Definition of employee . .
Appeal fromT Gover and others v Propertycare Ltd EAT 22-Nov-2005
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Polkey deduction.
The ET had found basic failings in the way the employers had sought to change employment contracts. This led to constructive dismissals and a finding of unfair . .

Cited by:

CitedAlexander and Hatherley v Bridgen Enterprises Ltd EAT 12-Apr-2006
The company made selections for redundancy, but failed to give the appellants information about how the scoring system had resulted in the figures allocated. The calculations left their representative unable to challenge them on appeal. The . .
CitedSoftware 2000 Ltd v Andrews etc EAT 17-Jan-2007
EAT Four employees successfully established before the Employment Tribunal that they had been unfairly dismissed for redundancy. The Tribunal found that there had been procedural defects. In particular the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.239740