Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Employment - From: 1991 To: 1991

This page lists 173 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Scally v Southern Health and Social Services Board [1991] 4 All ER 563; [1992] 1 AC 294; [1991] IRLR 525
1991
HL
Lord Bridge
Northern Ireland, Health Professions, Contract, Damages, Employment
The plaintiffs were junior doctors employed by the respondents. Their terms had been collectively negotiated, and incorporated the Regulations. During the period of their employment different regulations had given and then taken way their right to purchase additional superannuation contributions. They had not been told of the rights and had failed to exercise them. They claimed damages for breach of contract and of statutory duty. Held: The term was valuable and not negotiated with the plaintiffs. The defendants had a duty to bring the new rights to their attention. "If a duty of the kind in question is not inherent in the contractual relationship, I do not see how it could possibly be derived from the tort of negligence." The claims were not time barred because the obligation to inform had been continuing.
Contracts of Employment and Redundancy Payments Act (Northern Ireland) 1965 4(1) 5 - Health Services (Superannuation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1962 (1962 (NI) 237) - Health Services (Superannuation) (Amendment) (Number 3) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1974 (1974 (NI) 327)
1 Citers


 
Johnstone v Bloomsbury Health Authority [1991] ICR 269; [1992] QB 333
1991
CA
Sir Nicolas Browne-Wilkinson V-C
Employment
A junior doctor sought an injunction against the defendant health authority from being required to work excessive hours despite the terms of his contract. He had become ill as a result of inadequate sleep and sought damages in that respect. Implied terms as to working hours. Held: Damages for psychiatric injury in the form of nervous breakdown can be recovered. There is, at common law, an implied term of trust and confidence in every employment contract, and in particular a duty on the part of the employer to take reasonable care for the safety of employees, including the duty to provide a safe system of work. The scope of the duty of care owed to an employee to take reasonable steps to provide a safe system of work is co-extensive with the scope of the implied term as to the employee's safety in the contract of employment.
1 Citers



 
 Barber v Thames Television plc; EAT 1991 - [1991] ICR 253
 
Clifford v Union of Democratic Mineworkers [1991] IRLR 518
1991

Mann LJ, Lord Donaldson MR
Employment
Where the only relevant material was documentary the question whether A is employed by B or C is a matter of law but otherwise is a mixed question of law and fact: "This description (a mixed question of law and fact) does not, however, in my judgment mask the reality that the answer to the question is determined by the determination and evaluation of the relevant material. This is the task of the Industrial Tribunal and is not for either the Appeal Tribunal or this Court. Neither can interfere with the resolution of an issue of fact unless the resolution contains an explicit or implicit misdirection in law . . In the present case therefore the question is not whether the Industrial Tribunal were "wrong" but whether their conclusion betrays a self-misdirection."
1 Citers



 
 Dorrell v May and Baker Ltd; 1991 - (1991) PLR 31
 
Imperial Group Pension Trust Ltd v Imperial Tobacco Ltd [1991] ICR 524; [1991] 2 All ER 597; [1991] 1 WLR 589
1991

Sir Nicolas Browne-Wilkinson VC
Company, Employment, Trusts
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 obligations. Held: The new rule provided a minimum increase but no right for the trustees to grant unilateral increases above that minimum. It was not possible to imply a condition of reasonableness as to the exercise of the company's discretion, but there was an obligation to act in good faith as in every contract of employment. There existed an implied obligation that the discretion should not be exercised so as to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of trust and confidence between the company and its employees and former employees. The power of the company to withhold consent to benefit increases must be exercised in good faith. "Pension scheme trusts are of quite a different nature to traditional trusts. The traditional trust is one under which the settlor, by way of bounty, transfers property to trustees to be administered for the beneficiaries as objects of his bounty. Normally, there is no legal relationship between the parties apart from the trust. The beneficiaries have given no consideration for what they receive. The settlor, as donor, can impose such limits on his bounty as he chooses, including imposing a requirement that the consent of himself or some other person shall be required to the exercise of the powers. As the Court of Appeal have pointed out in Mihlenstedt v. Barclays Bank International Ltd [1989] I.R.L.R. 522 a pension scheme is quite different. Pension benefits are part of the consideration which an employee receives in return for the rendering of his services. In many cases, including the present, membership of the pension scheme is a requirement of employment. In contributory schemes, such as this, the employee is himself bound to pay for his or her contributions. Beneficiaries of the scheme, the members, far from being volunteers have been given valuable consideration. The company employer is not conferring a bounty. In my judgment, the scheme is established against the background of such employment and falls to be interpreted against that background"
Sir Nicolas Browne-Wilkinson VC discussed the implied term of trust and confidence between employer and employee: "I will call this implied term 'the implied obligation of good faith.' In my judgment, that obligation of an employer applies as much to the exercise of his rights and powers under a pension scheme as they do to the other rights and powers of an employer. Say, in purported exercise of its right to give or withhold consent, the company were to say, capriciously, that it would consent to an increase in the pension benefits of members of union A but not of the members of union B. In my judgment, the members of union B would have a good claim in contract for breach of the implied obligation of good faith: see Mihlenstedt v Barclays Bank International Ltd [1989] IRLR 522".
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
O'Laoire v Jackel International Limited (No 2) [1991] 1 ICR 718; [1991] IRLR 170 CA
1991
CA
Lord Justice Browne Wilkinson’s
Employment, Damages
On taking up employment the plaintiff was told he would later be appointed managing director. His employment was terminated, and he sought damages. Held: The defendant was estopped from denying it would appoint him managing director, since this was found to have been an implied term of his contract. It was settled law that there was no claim for injury to feelings. The compensatory award received through a claim in the industrrial tribunal should not be set off against the award, since the tribunal had not particularised the award under any one or more heads of damages.
Sir Nicholas Browne-Wilkinson stated that "it is well established that there can be no estoppel arising out of an order or judgment given in excess of jurisdiction"
Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 69(1)(3) 75(1)(3)
1 Citers



 
 King v Great Britain China Centre; CA 1991 - [1992] ICR 516; [1991] EWCA Civ 16; [1991] IRLR 513
 
Allsop v North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (1991) 90 LGR 462; [1992] ICR 639
1991
CA
Parker LJ, McCowan LJ and Sir John Megaw
Employment, Local Government
The district auditor declared that payments made by the Council under an "enhanced voluntary severance scheme", established by it in connection with its policy of not making employees compulsorily redundant, were unlawful. The payments were considerably in excess of the amounts which the council was obliged to pay under the employment legislation. Held:The Council did not have power to make awards in excess of the limits set out in the 1972 Act. The powers of the local authority to make payments to employees under either ss 111 or 112 of the Local Government Act 1972 were subject to the regulations made by the Secretary of State pursuant to sections 7 and 24 of the Superannuation Act 1972; the payments under the scheme were for redundancy; and the regulations under the Superannuation Act did not authorise the council to make payments for redundancy in excess of redundancy payments provided for in the employment legislation.
Parker LJ said: " . . the plain intention of Parliament [was] that the Secretary of State , subject to Parliamentary power to annul regulations in accordance with the Act, should be in complete charge of what is to be or may be paid on redundancy in addition to the payments provided for by the Act of 1978"
Superannuation Act 1972 112 - Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 81 - Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 111 112
1 Citers


 
Hewcastle Catering Ltd v Ahmed and Elkamah [1992] ICR 626; [1991] IRLR 473
1991
CA

Employment, Contract
The employers devised a VAT evasion scheme depending in part on the co-operation of the employees, but the employees themselves received no benefit. After giving evidence against their employers, the plaintiffs were dismissed. The employer appealed a finding of unfair dismissal, saying the employees were to be prevented from relying upon their unlawful agreement. Held: Public policy would be against making such a claim impossible. A contract would be void for illegality if in all the circumstances it would be an affront to the public conscience to allow it to be enforced. Such a defence should not succeed where the defendant's own conduct was signficantly more reprehensible than the claimant's.
Value Added Tax Act 1983 2(3) 39(1) 39(2) - Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 152
1 Citers


 
Jean Sorell Ltd v Rybak [1991] IRLR 153
1991
CA

Employment
Complaint was made that the claimant had been given incorrect advice by the Tribunal office.


 
 Alexander v Standard Telephones and Cables Ltd (No. 2); 1991 - [1991] IRLR 286
 
Office Angels Ltd v Rainer-Thomas [1991] IRLR 215
1991
CA
Sir Christopher Slade
Employment, Contract
The court re-stated the principles applicable in testing whether an employee's restrictive covenant was reasonable: "The court cannot say that a covenant in one form affords no more than adequate protection to a covenantee's relevant legitimate interests if the evidence shows that a covenant in another form, much less far-reaching and less potentially prejudicial to the covenantor, would have afforded adequate protection."
The court nevertheless identified a prototype non-solicitation covenant likely to be effective in most cases where there was a need to protect a client connection or a goodwill: "At least at first sight, a suitably drafted covenant precluding the defendants, for a reasonable period of time after the termination of their employment, from soliciting or dealing with clients of the plaintiff with whom they had dealt during the period of their employment would appear to have been quite adequate for the plaintiff's protection in this context."
Sir Christopher Slade said: "The employer's claim for protection must be based upon the identification of some advantage or asset inherent in the business which can properly be regarded as,in a general sense, his property, and which it would be unjust to allow the employee to appropriate for his own purposes, even though he, the employee, may have contributed to its creation."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Chapman v Aberdeen Construction Group [1991] IRLR 505
1991

Lord Caplan
Contract, Employment, Scotland
It having been conceded that contracts of service fell within section 15 of the 1977 Act, the court found that the question whether the contract was a consumer contract depended on the circumstances. Though the employee pursuer was to be regarded as a consumer in relation to his contract of employment with the defenders, the term consumer may not sit comfortably on an employee in relation to his work.
Unfair Contract terms Act 1977 15
1 Citers



 
 Lansing Linde v Kerr; CA 1991 - [1991] 1 WLR 251; [1991] IRLR 80
 
Regina v Civil Service Appeal Board, Ex parte Cunningham [1991] 4 All ER 310; [1992] ICR 816
1991
CA
Donaldson LJ
Employment, Administrative
The court considered the effect of a disciplinary board failing to give reasons. The absence of any right to appeal may be a factor in deciding that reasons should be given. If it is "important that there should be an effective means of detecting the kind of error [by way of judicial review] which would entitle the court to intervene” then the reasoning may have to be disclosed. Donaldson LJ said: “when a statute has conferred on any body the power to make decisions affecting individuals, the court will not only require the procedure prescribed by statute to be followed, but will readily imply so much and no more to be introduced by way of additional procedural standards as will ensure the attainment of fairness."
The fact that leave to apply for judicial review has been granted calls for some reply from a pulic authority respondent. Once a public law court had concluded that there was an arguable case that a decision was unlawful, the court was entitled to be given the reasons for the decision. Lord Donaldson drew a further distinction between the legal duty on a public authority to provide an individual with reasons for a decision and the duty to provide a court with reasons for the authority's conduct. Breach of the former duty can lead to the quashing of the decision without more. Failure to observe the latter can lead to the court drawing inferences adverse to the public authority, but it will not necessarily do so.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Wilson v Ministry of Defence [1991] ICR 595; [1991] 1 All ER 638
1991

Scott Baker J
Employment, Personal Injury, Damages
The court was asked to look at three events envisaged, and to consider whether, if they did occur, they should be described as constituting serious deterioration. Held: "First of all the development of arthritis to the extent that surgery is required. Osteoarthritis is a progressive condition. It is very common in cases where damage is suffered to an articular surface. I am not satisfied that it is established that deterioration to the point of surgery being required falls within the definition of serious deterioration in the circumstances of this case. It seems to me to be simply an aspect of a progression of this particular disease.
Secondly, development of arthritis to the extent that he changes employment. Again, it seems to me very much the same approach can be applied as with regard to the requirement of surgery and I do not think that deterioration triggering a change of employment can properly be described as serious within the meaning of the section.
Thirdly, that the plaintiff suffers a further injury in the nature of further damage to the ankle or elsewhere."
The court rejected the Claimant's approach: "The question then arises as to which cases are appropriate for a provisional damages award and which are not. I deal with this because, although I formed the view that there was no serious deterioration envisaged in this case, that was not a matter that I found entirely easy and indeed there are some matters that may more properly be dealt with under the heading of "discretion" rather than taking into account the circumstances of the case in looking at whether or not the section was complied with.
The general rule in English law is that damages are assessed on a once-and-for-all basis. Section 32A of the Supreme Court Act 1981 creates a valuable statutory exception. In my judgment, the section envisages a clear and severable risk rather than a continuing deterioration, as is the typical osteoarthritic picture.
In my judgment, many disabilities follow a developing pattern in which the precise results cannot be foreseen. Within a general band this or that may or may not occur. Such are not the cases for provisional damages. The courts have to do their best to make an award in the light of a broad medical prognosis.
In my judgment, there should be some clear-cut event which, if it occurs, triggers an entitlement to further compensation.
Argument was addressed to the question of whether or not the discretion should be exercised. No doubt the courts will work out over a period of time the various factors that it may be relevant to take into account in the exercise of such a discretion. In my judgment, the important factors in this case are, first, to look and see whether, in respect of any of the three events outlined by Mr. Langstaff, there can truly be said to be a clear-cut identifiable threshold. In my judgment, there cannot.
I also take into account the degree of risk and the consequences of the risk. They do not seem to me to be such as to place this case into the category where there is a great demand that there ought to be only a provisional damages award at this stage.
In a sense, this point leads into the third aspect that I regard as particularly relevant to the exercise of this discretion, and that is weighing up the possibilities of doing justice by a once-and-for-all assessment against the possibility of doing better justice by reserving the plaintiff's right to return.
It seems to me that the case falls within the general run of cases where there are uncertainties as far as the future is concerned. Nobody can look into a crystal ball and see precisely how the condition of the plaintiff's ankle will develop, but I think that the uncertainties are such that they can all properly be taken into account in making a once-and-for-all assessment of damages today. My conclusion therefore is that this is not an appropriate case in which to exercise discretion in favour of a provisional damages order."
1 Citers



 
 Telephone Information Services v Wilkinson; EAT 1991 - [1991] IRLR 148
 
Dimtsu v Westminster City Council [1991] IRLR 450
1991
EAT
Knox J
Employment
The EAT considered the application of the rule in Henderson v Henderson in Employment Appeal Tribunal proceedings.
Knox J said: "The majority is fortified in the view expressed so far by three further considerations. First, this jurisdiction is intended to provide a speedy remedy. The taking of fresh points on appeal militates against that. In this particular case the events in issue if they include those of 3 May 1988 are now close on three and a half years old. If the appeal is to succeed on this point there would have to be a fresh hearing of the application made under s.68(6) of the Act on matters that are now very stale. Secondly, as between Mr Dimtsu and the Council there can be no doubt but that the responsibility lies on Mr Dimtsu's side regarding the failure to make an application under s.68(6) of the Act. Thirdly, we regard it as important that the principles set out in Kumchyk v Derby County Council be upheld, and not eroded by qualifications based upon inferences which a chairman of an Industrial Tribunal might make. In saying this the majority would not wish to cast any doubt on the propriety of the long-established practice whereby chairmen of Industrial Tribunals give assistance where it is needed in the formulation and presentation of the cases of persons before them, be they applicant or respondent, who have not got the benefit of professional representation and indeed on some occasions when they have such representation. But this must be a matter for the judgment of the Industrial Tribunal in each individual case and should not be erected into an obligation which if not fully complied with leads to a conclusion that an error in law has been committed."
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Morgan v Electrolux Ltd; CA 1991 - [1991] ICR 369; [1991] IRLR 89

 
 Foster v British Gas plc; HL 1991 - [1991] 2 AC 306; [1991] 1 QB 40
 
Delaney v Staples [1991] IRLR 112
1991
CA
Nicholls LJ
Employment
Any failure by an employer to pay any amount of wages properly payable to an employee amounts to a deduction from his wages for the purposes of section 7. The basic object of the 1986 Act is "to see that workers receive their wages in full at the time they are due".
The 1986 Act does not draw a distinction between, on the one hand, a mere non-payment or refusal to pay wages, and, on the other hand, a deduction from wages. The position is that any shortfall in the payment of the amount of wages properly payable to the worker is to be treated as a deduction. Nicholls LJ said: "If on his pay day, when an employee is due to be paid, a worker receives less wages than he should have done, the deficiency is to be regarded as a deduction for the purposes of the Act."
Wages Act 1986 7
1 Citers


 
Hough and Apex v Leyland DAF Ltd [1991] ICR 696
1991
EAT
Knox J
Employment, European
EAT The employer requested a report as to contracting out their security arrangements in late 1996. The recommendation to contract out came in January 1997. After enquiries in May, a second report repeated the recommendation. Managers were consulted in August and a contract was offered in October, for the change at Christmas, The employer told the union. Meetings took place but each accepted that the question of redundancies was already decided. 29 security staff were made redundant, and their complaint under section 99 EPA was upheld by an Industrial Tribunal. They said the consultation should have commenced in May. Held: The employer's appeal failed. Knox J said: "We were also pressed on behalf of the employees with the argument that the consultations which the section requires must be meaningful: compare E. Green & Son (Castings) Ltd v Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs [1984] ICR 352, 359H and Transport and General Workers' Union v Ledbury Preserves (1928) Ltd [1985] IRLR 412, and that the quality of the consultation formed a significant factor in leading to the industrial tribunal's decision that Leyland were in breach of section 99 as well as the timing of the consultation. On the other hand for Leyland it was submitted that although the consultation has to be genuine it does not follow as a matter of law that an employer who embarks on consultation believing that he has an unanswerable case has failed in his statutory obligation to consult. In principle we accept this latter submission but it does not, in our judgment, go to the point which we have to decide which is whether the industrial tribunal erred in law in reaching the decision that Leyland were in breach of section 99.
In our view, they asked themselves the right question that is to say 'when did Leyland propose to dismiss the security staff as redundant?' Although they did in our view make two discernible errors in the course of their decision, neither of them affects the validity of the answer which they gave to that question."
Those errors were, first a finding of fact, found by the EAT to be immaterial, which was unsupported by any evidence; the second was a self-direction by the tribunal that it was not open to them to construe section 99 in line with EC Directive 75/129/ECC.
Knox J said: "We are not persuaded that the Directive requires any construction to be adopted of the words of section 99(1) "an employer proposing to dismiss as redundant an employee" which would require a later stage in the employer's decision-making process to be identified than section 99 (1) in the context of the Act of 1975 alone would require. Whether or not an earlier stage would be appropriate does not arise for decision."
Employment Protection Act 1975 99 - EC Directive 75/129/ECC
1 Citers


 
Fuller v Lloyds Bank PLC [1991] IRLR 336
1991
EAT
Knox J
Employment
The tribunal emphasised the need for a disciplinary procedure to be fair in providing an employee opportunities to know the case against him, and the evidence, and to be given chance to dispute that evidence.
1 Citers


 
Regina v Lord Chancellor, ex parte Nangle [1991] ICR 743; [1992] 1 All ER 897
1991
CA

Employment, Contract, Judicial Review
The applicant was a Civil Servant seeking judicial review of the Department's decision to discipline him. The issue was whether he had a contract of employment or merely a relationship with the Crown, regulated under its prerogative powers. There were a number of documents which, together, comprised Mr Nangle's appointment. There was a letter of appointment which cross referred to other documents which either were enclosed with the letter or were readily available elsewhere. Held: The question whether there was an intention to create legal relations had to be ascertained objectively, and where the terms of the relationship are to be derived solely from the documents, its answer depends upon the construction of those documents: "[I]n our judgment, that the question whether there is an intention to create legal relations is to be ascertained objectively, and where the terms of the relationship are, as here, to be derived solely from the documents, depends upon the construction of those documents. It is possible for a party to believe mistakenly that he is contractually bound to another when in fact he is not; and conversely to believe that he is not when he is. His belief is immaterial. While this remains a subjective belief uncommunicated to the other party, this is plainly correct. But where such a belief is expressed in the documents it must be a question of construction of the documents as a whole what effect should be given to such a statement."
Civil servants enter into legal relations with the Crown in the form of contracts of employment: "In our judgment the use of the word "appointment" is neutral and certainly does not negative an intention to create legal relations. Many contractual relationships of employer and employee are described as appointments".

 
Furniture Timber and Allied Trades Union v Laffan [1991] UKEAT 177_91_0102
1 Feb 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Elbogen v Royal Institute of British Architects [1991] UKEAT 480_90_0702
7 Feb 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
British Gas Plc v McCarrick [1991] EWCA Civ 17; [1991] IRLR 305
20 Feb 1991
CA
Stocker VC, Beldam LJJ
Employment

[ Bailii ]

 
 Masgio v Bundesknappschaft; ECJ 7-Mar-1991 - [1991] ECR I-1119; C-10/90; [1991] EUECJ C-10/90
 
MCC Drains Ltd and Another v Waugh [1991] UKEAT 182_90_1903
19 Mar 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Purcell v Ireland (1991) 70 DR 262; 15404/89
16 Apr 1991
ECHR
CA Norgaard P
Human Rights, Employment
The applicants were several individuals and two trades unions who complained that a ministerial order made under legislation relating to broadcasting infringed their rights under Article 10 of the Convention. Held: The Commission rejected the application as inadmissible in so far as brought by the two trade unions, saying that the measure complained of did not affect the rights of the applicant unions themselves: the ministerial order did not refer to the exercise of any of their rights. The fact alone that the trade unions considered themselves as guardians of the collective interests of their members did not suffice to make them victims within the meaning of Article 25. It followed that in so far as the application was brought by the two trade unions, it was incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention and must be rejected.
European Convention on Human Rights 10
1 Citers

[ HUDOC ]

 
 Norris (t/a J Davis and Son) v Checksfield; CA 17-Apr-1991 - [1991] 1 WLR 1241; Times, 23 April 1991; [1991] 4 All ER 327; [1991] 23 HLR 423
 
M Mckechnie v UBM Building Supplies (Southern) Ltd [1991] UKEAT 472_89_2404
24 Apr 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Transworld Airlines Inc v Kelman [1991] UKEAT 493_90_2504
25 Apr 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Segal v Rutherfords (Morpeth) Ltd [1991] UKEAT 90_330_2904
29 Apr 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Bullock v The Alice Ottley School [1991] UKEAT 540_89_3004
30 Apr 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Jenkins v P and O European Ferries (Dover) Ltd [1991] UKEAT 450_90_0105
1 May 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Marke v Crown Prosecution Service [1991] UKEAT 63_90_0205
2 May 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Bounty Services Ltd v Ashton [1991] UKEAT 590_89_0205
2 May 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Reddel v Dunn and Another (T/A A H Allen and Partners) [1991] UKEAT 467_90_0705
7 May 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Robinson v Gordons Pharmacy Ltd [1991] UKEAT 539_89_2105
21 May 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Leung v South Coast Nursing Homes Ltd [1991] UKEAT 15_91_2205
22 May 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Fields v British Railways Board [1991] UKEAT 552_89_2305
23 May 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Nottingham County Council v Peet [1991] UKEAT 506_89_1606
16 Jun 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Larrea v Post Office [1991] UKEAT 156_90_1706
17 Jun 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Sinclair v Rutherford Appleton Laboratory [1991] UKEAT 287_91_1706
17 Jun 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Turns v Smart and others [1991] UKEAT 510_90_1706
17 Jun 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Clark v Civil Aviation Authority [1991] UKEAT 362_89_1806
18 Jun 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Byrne and others v Financial Times Ltd and Another [1991] UKEAT 194_91_1906
19 Jun 1991
EAT

Employment

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Hudspith v Post Office Counters Ltd [1991] UKEAT 567_89_2406
24 Jun 1991
EAT
Wood P J
Employment
The employee appealed against rejection of his claim for unfair constructive dismissal and alleging bias. Held: The appeal failed. No error of law had been shown. The tribunal faced diametrically opposite factual assertions, and had reached conclusions properly. Similarly rather than being biased, the papers and notes of evidence showed a tribunal going out of its way to try to allow the claimant to present his case.
[ Bailii ]
 
Williams v London Borough of Wandsworth [1991] UKEAT 589_89_2506
25 Jun 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Cohen v London Borough of Barnet [1991] UKEAT 320_91_0807
8 Jul 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Hairsine v Kingston Upon Hull City Council [1991] UKEAT 544_89_0907
9 Jul 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Gova v Co-Operative Wholesale Society Ltd [1991] UKEAT 486_90_0907
9 Jul 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Mayer-Kusterer v Tony and Ossie Rizzo [1991] UKEAT 48_90_1007
10 Jul 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Northcote v Hobart Manufacturing Co Ltd [1991] UKEAT 428_90_1007
10 Jul 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Green and others v Whittington [1991] UKEAT 351_91_1107
11 Jul 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
O'Gorman v Coventry Presswork Ltd [1991] UKEAT 370_90_1507
15 Jul 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Crowson and Son Ltd v Shannon [1991] UKEAT 604_90_1607
16 Jul 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Dixon v Derby Black Business Agency [1991] UKEAT 123_91_1607
16 Jul 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Byrne and others v Financial Times Ltd and Another [1991] UKEAT 194_91_1607
16 Jul 1991
EAT

Employment

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Thomas v R C Frame Erectors Ltd [1991] UKEAT 116_91_1807
18 Jul 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Evans (Deceased), Executors of v The Metropolitan Police Authority [1991] UKEAT 117_91_1807
18 Jul 1991
EAT

Employment

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
UK Security Services (Midlands) Ltd v Gibbons and others [1991] UKEAT 104_90_2307
23 Jul 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Initial Textile Services v Rendell [1991] UKEAT 383_91_2307
23 Jul 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Procter v British Gypsum Ltd [1991] UKEAT 535_89_2407
24 Jul 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Davies v Station Garage [1991] UKEAT 270_91_2407
24 Jul 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Pearson v Kent County Council [1991] UKEAT 578_89_2507
25 Jul 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Giuseppe d'Urso, Adriana Ventadori and others v Ercole Marelli Elettromeccanica Generale SpA C-362/89; [1991] EUECJ C-362/89; [1992] ECR I-4105
25 Jul 1991
ECJ

European, Employment
Europa Article 3(1) of Directive 77/187 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses is to be interpreted as meaning that all contracts of employment or employment relationships existing on the date of the transfer of an undertaking between the transferor and the workers employed in the undertaking transferred are automatically transferred to the transferee by the mere fact of the transfer. That transfer is binding on both the transferor and the transferee and on the employees' representatives, who may not agree different arrangements in an agreement with the transferor or the transferee and on the employees themselves, save that the employees may freely decide not to continue the employment relationship with the new employer after the transfer.
Article 1(1) of Council Directive 77/187 does not apply to transfers of undertakings made as part of a creditors' arrangement procedure of the kind provided for in the Italian legislation on compulsory administrative liquidation to which the Law of 3 April 1979 on special administration for large undertakings in critical difficulties refers. However, that provision of that directive does apply when, in accordance with a body of legislation such as that governing special administration for large undertakings in critical difficulties, it has been decided that the undertaking is to continue trading for as long as that decision remains in force.
Directive 77/187 3(1)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Freeman v Sovereign Chicken Ltd [1991] UKEAT 514_89_2707
27 Jul 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Hipperson v Barclays Bank Plc [1991] UKEAT 411_90_2907
29 Jul 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Sougrin v Haringey Health Authority [1991] UKEAT 586_90_3107; [1991] IRLR 447
31 Jul 1991
EAT

Employment, Discrimination
The applicant alleged discrimination arising out of a disputed grading. She claimed the grading she had received in 1988 amounted to direct discrimination on grounds of race, and that because this affected her pay there was a 'continuing act' of discrimination, which entitled her to present a complaint in 1990. Held: The fact she continued to receive lower pay than her comparator was the consequence of the decision to place her at the disputed grade - not the result of a 'continuing act'. There was no less favourable term of her contract because the relevant term in her contract was that she would be paid according to her grade, and that was not a discriminatory provision.
Race Relations Act 1976
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Mendik Industrial Co Ltd (Uk) v Smith [1991] UKEAT 225_91_0309
3 Sep 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Thompson v GEC Avionics Ltd [1991] UKEAT 330_91_0409
4 Sep 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Gem Wear Ltd v Levitt [1991] UKEAT 487_91_0509
5 Sep 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Dell v Simons and Sons Laundrettes Ltd [1991] UKEAT 64_91_0509
5 Sep 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
St Basil's Centre Ltd v Mccrossan [1991] UKEAT 473_89_0509
5 Sep 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Butterworth v Yeoman Computer Bureau Services Ltd [1991] UKEAT 226_91_1009
10 Sep 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
RSPCA (Derby) v Rollinson [1991] UKEAT 204_90_1109
11 Sep 1991
EAT

Employment

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Farrell v Expats International Ltd [1991] UKEAT 569_89_1209
12 Sep 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Balabel v Davis and others [1991] UKEAT 153_91_1909
19 Sep 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Transport and General Workers Union v Howard [1991] UKEAT 545_89_1909
19 Sep 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Banai v Bristol and Weston Health Authority [1991] UKEAT 41_90_2009
20 Sep 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Banai v Southampton and South West Hampshire Health Authority [1991] UKEAT 97_90_2009
20 Sep 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Banai v Bristol and Weston Health Authority [1991] UKEAT 363_90_2007
20 Sep 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Banai v Southend Health Authority (Southend Hospital) and others [1991] UKEAT 102_90_2009
20 Sep 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Douglas v Tesco Stores Ltd [1991] UKEAT 338_91_2309
23 Sep 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Balachandra v Southampton and South West Hampshire Health Authority [1991] UKEAT 468_90_2309
23 Sep 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Badibanga v Szerelmy UK Ltd [1991] UKEAT 458_90_2309
23 Sep 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Sinclair v Wind Energy Group Ltd [1991] UKEAT 474_90_2309
23 Sep 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Clarke v Hampshire Electro Plating Co Ltd [1991] UKEAT 605_89_2409; [1992] ICR 312
24 Sep 1991
EAT
Wood J
Employment, Discrimination
The EAT remitted a case to the Employment tribunal and stressed the importance of determining, as between alleged incidents of discrimination on different dates, when the act of discrimination "crystallized".
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Stanrew Electronics Ltd v Cottrell [1991] UKEAT 159_90_2509
25 Sep 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
East v Ruston Gas Turbines Ltd [1991] UKEAT 275_91_0210
2 Oct 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Byers v Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission [1991] UKEAT 558_89_0210
2 Oct 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Sharples v Halford and others [1991] UKEAT 80_91_0410
4 Oct 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Sharples v Halford and others [1991] UKEAT 80_91_0410
4 Oct 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Davison v Secretary of State for Employment [1991] UKEAT 496_90_0710
7 Oct 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Hick Hargreaves and Co Ltd v Roscoe [1991] UKEAT 205_91_0810
8 Oct 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Pittman v Davis Build Plc (In Liquidation) [1991] UKEAT 122_90_0910
9 Oct 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Milner v H Parfitt and Sons [1991] UKEAT 538_90_0910
9 Oct 1991
EAT

Employment
The claimant appealed against rejection of her claim for unfair dismissal based on the fact that, having been employed only for three weeks, her claim was bound to fail. On appeal, acting in person she said she wished to claim in fraud and deception. Held: The jurisdiction of the employment tribunal system was statutory, and could not cover such claims.
[ Bailii ]
 
Sharma v Hindu Temple and others [1991] UKEAT 253_90_1010
10 Oct 1991
EAT

Employment

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Office Cleaning Services Ltd v P Jones [1991] UKEAT 413_89_1010
10 Oct 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Taylor and others v Secretary of State for Employment [1991] UKEAT 165_91_1110
11 Oct 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
the Home Office v R L Ayres [1991] UKEAT 501_89_1110
11 Oct 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
C V McCree v the London Borough of Tower Hamlets [1991] UKEAT 186_89_1110
11 Oct 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Naqvi v Bank of Credit and Commerce International [1991] UKEAT 547_90_1410
14 Oct 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Charter Securities (T/A Charter Project Managment International) v Blakeley [1991] UKEAT 497_91_1410
14 Oct 1991
EAT

Employment

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Pynford North Ltd v J A Paterson [1991] UKEAT 389_89_1510
15 Oct 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Bigham and Another v GKN Kwikform Ltd [1991] UKEAT 100_91_1510
15 Oct 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Rogers v Chloride Systems Ltd [1991] UKEAT 67_91_1610
16 Oct 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Matthews v Woolworths Plc [1991] UKEAT 413_91_1710
17 Oct 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Faulkner v Gorton and Another [1991] UKEAT 623_90_1810
18 Oct 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Liverpool Airport Plc v Musgrove [1991] UKEAT 260_91_2410
24 Oct 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Willoughby v Morland (Holdings) Ltd [1991] UKEAT 316_91_2810
28 Oct 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Afzal v London Borough of Lambeth [1991] UKEAT 570_90_2810
28 Oct 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Reith and others v British Airways Plc [1991] UKEAT 363_87_2910
29 Oct 1991
EAT

Employment

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Controlled Demolition Group Ltd v Lane and Another [1991] UKEAT 418_91_3110
31 Oct 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Wardle Storeys Plc v Parry [1991] UKEAT 566_91_0211
2 Nov 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Slaven v Thermo Engineers Ltd [1991] UKEAT 568_91_411
4 Nov 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
BSB Developments (Barnsley) Limited v McManis [1991] UKEAT 604_89_0511
5 Nov 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Ewen v British Gas Plc [1991] UKEAT 513_91_0611
6 Nov 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Tithebarn Ltd v Hubbard [1991] UKEAT 532_89_0711
7 Nov 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
De Grasse v Stockwell Tools Ltd [1991] UKEAT 529_89_1111
11 Nov 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Phillips v Browne and Tawse Ltd [1991] UKEAT 309_90_1111
11 Nov 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Hughes-Maher and Co v Cowley and Another [1991] UKEAT 472_90_1111
11 Nov 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Le Gros v Southampton and Sw Hants Health Authority [1991] UKEAT 626_90_1111
11 Nov 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Rolls Royce Plc v Francis [1991] UKEAT 70_90_1211
12 Nov 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Gillan v Paramas Ltd [1991] UKEAT 96_91_1211
12 Nov 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
York Technology Ltd v Taylor [1991] UKEAT 616_91_1211
12 Nov 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Smith v Villa Owners Club Ltd [1991] UKEAT 524_89_1311
13 Nov 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Lowe v British Railways Board [1991] UKEAT 574_89_1311
13 Nov 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Denco Ltd v Joinson [1991] 1 WLR 330
14 Nov 1991
EAT
Mr. R. H. Phipps and Mr. S. M. Springer
Employment
cw Employment - Unfair dismissal - Reasonableness of dismissal - Misconduct - Computer - Deliberate and unauthorised access to computer files - Summary dismissal for gross misconduct - Whether purpose for which access to file obtained relevant
The employee claimed damages for unfair dismissal. He had accessed a computer at his company's premises without authority, having used another's ID and password. The company appealed the finding of unfair dismissal saying the tribunal had wrongly made allowance for his reasons for so acting. Held: The tribunal had erred in requiring the employers to show that they had reasonable grounds for believing the access to be illegitimate. The motive was irrelevant in law. Though the misuse of computers will be a serious offence, companies would be well advised to put appropriate policies in place.
1 Cites

[ lip ]
 
Derby Daily Telegraph Ltd v Foss [1991] UKEAT 631_91_1411
14 Nov 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Sterling and Another v Henlys Ltd [1991] UKEAT 7_91_1511
15 Nov 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Efficient Screen Printers Ltd v Mullen and Another [1991] UKEAT 563_90_1811
18 Nov 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]

 
 Francovich, Bonifaci and others v Italy; ECJ 19-Nov-1991 - (1993) CMLR 66; C-6/90; [1991] ECR I-5357; [1992] IRLR 84; [1991] EUECJ C-6/90; [1995] ICR 722
 
Marconi Communication Systems Ltd v Leeney [1991] UKEAT 140_90_1911
19 Nov 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Line v Professional Connection Ltd [1991] UKEAT 639_90_2011
20 Nov 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Hammond and Champness Ltd v Griffin [1991] UKEAT 317_91_2011
20 Nov 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Humphreys v Co-Ordinated Cleaning Ltd [1991] UKEAT 197_91_2011
20 Nov 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Emirates v Prosser [1991] UKEAT 16_90_2011
20 Nov 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
W Potter v Hunt Contracts Ltd [1991] UKEAT 428_89_2011; [1992] IRLR 108; [1992] ICR 337
20 Nov 1991
EAT
Wood P J
Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
National Westminster Bank Plc v Hussain [1991] UKEAT 421_91_2111
21 Nov 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
National Westminster Bank Plc v Hussain [1991] UKEAT 421_91_2111
21 Nov 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Hlf Ltd v Parry [1991] UKEAT 550_90_2211
22 Nov 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
British Coal Corporation v Irwin and others [1991] UKEAT 267_91_2511
25 Nov 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Nottingham Health Authority v Keane and Another [1991] UKEAT 508_90_2511
25 Nov 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Jones v Hertfordshire County Council [1991] UKEAT 348_89_2611
26 Nov 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
M P Burke Plc v Harrison [1991] UKEAT 215_90_2611
26 Nov 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
BT Consumer Electronics Ltd v Gingell and Another [1991] UKEAT 9_90_2711
27 Nov 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Sauboorah v Richmond Twickenham and Roehampton Health [1991] UKEAT 335_91_2711
27 Nov 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Hand Tools Ltd v Maleham [1991] UKEAT 110_91_2711
27 Nov 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Johnson v Health and Safety Executive [1991] UKEAT 600_90_2811
28 Nov 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Workers' Educational Association v Saunders and Another [1991] UKEAT 143_91_2811
28 Nov 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Darr v British Railways Board [1991] UKEAT 191_90_2811
28 Nov 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Em-Ess Chemist Ltd v Simpson [1991] UKEAT 191_91_2911
29 Nov 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Nazaran v Nalgo [1991] UKEAT 606_89_2911
29 Nov 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Cusworth v Ariston Domestic Appliances Ltd [1991] UKEAT 537_90_0212
2 Dec 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Hussain v Cressal Group Ltd [1991] UKEAT 581_90_0212
2 Dec 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Goomany v Degnan [1991] UKEAT 260_91_0212
2 Dec 1991
EAT
Wood J
Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Birmingham Mosque Trust Ltd v Alavi [1991] UKEAT 188_91_0312
3 Dec 1991
EAT

Employment

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Bhatt v Pioneer Plastic Containers Ltd [1991] UKEAT 108_90_0312
3 Dec 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Trent Regional Health Authority v Guirguis [1991] UKEAT 647_90_0412
4 Dec 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Garg v Merton and Sutton Health Authority and others [1991] UKEAT 489_91_0412
4 Dec 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Livingstone v Hepworth Refractories Plc Gazette, 05 February 1992; [1991] UKEAT 643_90_0512
5 Dec 1991
EAT

Discrimination, Employment

Sex Discrimination Act 1975
[ Bailii ]
 
Subasinghe-Sharpe v London Borough of Brent [1991] UKEAT 583_89_0512
5 Dec 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Cainhoe Wood Leisure Ltd (T/A Beadlow Manor) v Higgins [1991] UKEAT 318_90_0612
6 Dec 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
London International College v Sen [1991] UKEAT 344_91_0612; [1993] IRLR 333
6 Dec 1991
EAT
Knox J
Employment
In judging whether time should be extended to allow a claim to be accepted, the tribunal should: "concentrate on the state of mind of the prospective complainant and the extent to which he or she understood his position." It is the reasonableness of the claimant's ignorance or mistake that is in the end determinative of whether it is reasonably practicable to make a complaint in time.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Mccoid v Commercial and Maritime Ltd and Another [1991] UKEAT 1_90_1112
11 Dec 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Brook and others v London Borough of Haringey [1991] UKEAT 20_91_1612
16 Dec 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Cold Drawn Tubes Ltd v Middleton [1991] UKEAT 615_90_1712
17 Dec 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Calder v Rowntree Mackintosh Confectionery Ltd [1991] UKEAT 594_89_1912
19 Dec 1991
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Doughty v Rolls Royce Plc [1991] EWCA Civ 15; [1992] ICR 538; [1992] IRLR 126; [1992] 1 CMLR 1045
19 Dec 1991
CA
Mustill, Butler-Sloss LJJ, Sir John Megaw
Employment, Discrimination, European, Constitutional
The claimants sought to assert their rights under the Equal Treatment Directive, whoch had not been implemented. She had been made to retire at 60, but said that had she been a man she would not have had to retire until she reached 65 years old. She had succeeded at the Industrial Tribunal, but failed at the EAT. Held: The court was being asked: "did the act of the respondent company in denying to the appellant the opportunity to continue in service for a further five years amount to reliance by the United Kingdom upon its own failure to bring English law into conformity with the Equal Treatment Directive?" All the shares of the company were in the ownership of the government.
Mustill LJ said: "European legislation of the present kind does not have direct effect on individuals, in the sense of creating causes of action on which they can sue or be sued in the courts of the member state. Nevertheless, if the domestic law falls short of what is required by the Directive the member state is in breach of its treaty obligation to give effect to it. Thus, if the individual asserts before his domestic court a right or immunity vis-a-vis the member state which is not available under the domestic law, but which would have been available if the member state had brought its domestic law into line with the Directive, then the individual is entitled to have his case adjudged as if the member state had performed its obligation: i.e. in accordance with the terms of the Directive."
European Council Directive 1976 EEC/76/207 - Sex Discrimination Act 1975 6(4)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.