EAT Jurisdictional Points : Fraud and Illegality
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Perversity
The key issue before the Employment Tribunal related to an oral agreement varying of the Claimant’s contract of employment concerning the provision of a car. The Employment Tribunal rejected the Claimant’s evidence on that question and said, further, that if the agreement had been in the terms for which the Claimant contended it would have been tainted by illegality and unenforceable.
Held: The Employment Tribunal was not perverse in rejecting the Claimant’s evidence on the question of variation. Moreover it committed no error of law in concluding that if the agreement had been in the terms for which the Claimant contended it would have been tainted by illegality. Hall v Woolston Hall Leisure Ltd [2001] ICR 99 applied. On these and on subsidiary grounds the appeal was dismissed.
David Richardson HHJ
[2016] UKEAT 0078 – 16 – 1807
Bailii
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570382