Kirklees Metropolitan Council v Radecki: CA 8 Apr 2009

The council appealed against a finding that the claimant’s case had been brought in time. There had been negotiations for a compromise agreement which had failed. The EAT had found it unclear that the employment had ended at the point asserted by the employers.
Held: The draft and correspondence had all been ‘subject to contract’ and therefore was ineffective to have terminated the claimant’s employment, and the employment judge’s interpretation had been incorrect. The EAT had itself however erred, and the matter had to be returned to the ET for a decision on the facts.

Rimer, Rix, Toulson LJJ
[2009] EWCA Civ 298, [2009] ICR 1244, [2009] IRLR 555, [2009] IRLR 555, [2009] ICR 1244
Employment Rights Act 1996 111
England and Wales
Appeal fromRadecki v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council EAT 9-May-2008
EAT Jurisdictional Points: Claim in time and effective date of termination
Claimant was suspended from duty as a teacher and entered into negotiations with Respondent for a compromise agreement whereby he . .
CitedDedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances CA 1973
The claimant sought to bring his claim under a provision which required a complaint to the industrial tribunal to be made within four weeks of the dismissal unless the employment tribunal was satisfied that this was not ‘practicable’. He did not . .
CitedMarriott v Oxford and District Co-operative Society Ltd (No. 2) CA 1970
After pointing out that the statutory definition of ‘the relevant date’ for redundancy payment purposes . . is the date of the expiry of the notice or (if there is no notice) the date on which the termination takes effect, Winn LJ said: ‘That is . .
CitedRobert Cort and Son Ltd v Charman EAT 1981
Where an employee is dismissed summarily, the effective date of termination of his employment for the purposes of employment law is the date of the summary dismissal. It makes no difference that the dismissal might have amounted to a repudiatory . .
CitedLambert v Croydon College EAT 19-Nov-1998
Crank was rightly decided, notwithstanding a fresh argument that it offended against section 203 by in effect sanctioning contracting out of the Act. . .

Cited by:
CitedGisda Cyf v Barratt CA 2-Jul-2009
The employer wrote to the employee on 29 November 2006 informing her of her dismissal, the letter arrived on the 30th, and she read it on the 4th of December. The employer appealed against a finding that the effective date of dismissal was the date . .
CitedGisda Cyf v Barratt SC 13-Oct-2010
The parties disputed the effective date of termination of the claimant’s employment. Was it the date on which the letter notifying her was sent, or was it on the day she received it. She had been dimissed without notice, and the date was the date on . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.331093