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: 1992 To: 1992

This page lists 347 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.


 
 Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment, Ex parte NALGO; CA 1992 - (1992) 5 Admin LR 785; [1993] ALR 785

 
 Barber v Thames Television plc; CA 1992 - [1992] ICR 661
 
P v Nottinghamshire County Council [1992] IRLR 362
1992


Employment

1 Citers


 
PSM International PLC v Whitehouse [1992] IRLR 279
1992
CA
Lloyd LJ
Employment
The question of what constituted a trade secret or similar is a question of degree.
1 Citers


 
Sartor v P and O European Ferries (Felixstowe) Ltd [1992] IRLR 271
1992
CA
Purchas LJ, Ralph Gibson LJ
Employment
When considering whether an employer had acted reasonably in a disciplinary hearing, all that section 57 required was (Purchas LJ) "that the employer should have a reason falling within the provisions and that, in reaching that reason, he acted reasonably".
Ralph Gibson LJ said: "The appeal was by rehearing and there was on that occasion no significant defect in the proceedings. Any defects in what had gone before were cured by the opportunity to appeal."
The fact that a particular manager has been involved at an earlier stage does not necessarily prevent him sitting on a disciplinary hearing.
The question of the fairness of the procedures and the hearings at either stage of the disciplinary hearing or the appeal process, were fair or fundamentally flawed, is a question of fact for the Industrial Tribunal.
1 Citers


 
In Re Hartlebury Printers Ltd [1992] ICR 559; [1993] BCLC 902
1992

Morritt J
Insolvency, Employment, European
Insolvency, at least per se, does not amount to a special circumstance exempting an employer from consulting employees on redundancy. Morritt J noted the distinction in the Directive between contemplated and projected redundancies and section 99 to an employer "proposing to dismiss" and said: "The Union contends that both those sections should be construed to give effect to the Directive so that the duty under section 99 arises when an employer has redundancies in contemplation. That it is the duty of the Court, if possible, to construe United Kingdom legislation so as to comply with the United Kingdom's obligations under an EEC Directive is not in doubt. But that must be achieved, if at all, by proper processes of construction, not so far as the Court is concerned by the equivalent of legislation.
Dealing first with the Directive, it seems to me that the word "projected" in Article 3 is used in the sense of "then intended" after the processes of consultation with the Union had been completed." . . Thus the contemplation referred to in Article 2(1) is something less than intention. Nevertheless, the range of mental states included within the word is wide. It would extend from merely "thinking about" to "having in view or expecting". In the latter sense, but not the former, the word would equate with the verb to propose . . Approaching that problem from the wording of section 99 I think it is clear, not least from subsection (5) that the phrase "an employer proposing to dismiss as redundant" cannot include one who is merely thinking about the possibilities of redundancies. Thus I cannot construe the word "proposing" to embrace the full range of the possible meaning of the word "contemplating" but I can construe "contemplating" in a sense equivalent to "proposing". Article 2 (1) of the Directive has not, so far as I know, been construed by the European Court of Justice. Thus I assume, because it is for the Court of Justice and not for me to decide, that section 99 does comply with the United Kingdom's obligations."
Employment Protection Act 1975 99
1 Citers


 
Lefebvre v HOJ Industries Ltd [1992] 1 SCR 831
1992


Employment
All contracts of employment are, as a matter of law, subject to an implied term that they are terminable on reasonable notice, and such a term can be displaced only by clear words.
1 Citers


 
Regina v Hull University Visitor, ex parte Page [1992] ICR 67
1992
CA

Employment
The employee's terms included two provisions, one in his letter of appointment which provided for either party to terminate on three months' notice in writing, and one in the university's statutes empowering the university to dismiss him for good cause. Held: He could be dismissed on either basis. Good cause was not required if three month's notice was given. The right to terminate on notice was not to be cut down by the "good cause" term. The court made clear, that this was a question of construction of the particular contractual documents and terms involved and no general principle of law was established that notice clauses in such contracts are to prevail over other express terms concerned with termination.
1 Citers



 
 Parker Foundry Ltd v Slack; CA 1992 - [1992] ICR 302; [1992] IRLR 11
 
GMB v Rankin and Harrison [1992] IRLR 514
1992
EAT

Employment
The proper approach when setting a protective award for non-consultation was to start with the maximum period and to make allowance according to any mitigation found.
1 Citers


 
Red Bank Manufacturing Co Ltd v Meadows [1992] ICR 204; [1991] UKEAT 125_90_1411; [1991] UKEAT 567_90_1411; [1992] IRLR 209
1992
EAT
Tucker J
Employment
A party wishing to complain about a member of the employment tribunal should make his complaint to that tribunal rather than at the EAT. The Polkey principle must be considered by the Tribunal in assessing compensation for unfair dismissal even though it was not raised by the parties before them.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Piggott Brothers and Co Ltd v Jackson [1992] ICR 85
1992
CA
Lord Donaldson of Lymington MR
Employment
The court asked under what circumstances an appellate court could interfere with the decision of a lower court in employment cases: ´What matters is whether the decision under appeal was a permissible option. To answer that question in the negative in the context of employment law, the appeal tribunal will almost always have to be able to identify a finding of fact which was unsupported by any evidence or a clear self-misdirection in law by the industrial tribunal. If it cannot do this, it should re-examine with the greatest care its preliminary conclusion that the decision under appeal was not a permissible option and has to be characterised as "perverse".'
1 Citers


 
Financial Times Ltd v Byrne and others [1992] UKEAT 701_91_0701
7 Jan 1992
EAT

Employment

1 Cites

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Gardener v Haydn Davies Catering Equipment and Another (1988) Ltd [1992] UKEAT 8_90_0901
9 Jan 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Wilton v Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Health Authority [1992] UKEAT 324_90_1401
14 Jan 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
BOC Ltd v McConnon [1992] UKEAT 613_89_1401
14 Jan 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Institute of Motor Industry v Harvey [1992] UKEAT 132_91_1401
14 Jan 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
C James and Sons v Puglia [1992] UKEAT 96_90_1501
15 Jan 1992
EAT
Wood J P
Employment
The claimant had been made redundant after many years. He had worked for a farming partnership, and there had been recent changes in the partnership constitution.
Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Rowe v Union and Western Hotels Ltd [1992] UKEAT 95_90_1601
16 Jan 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Gilbert v Data Express [1992] UKEAT 185_92_1901
19 Jan 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
City Electrical Factors Ltd v Cousens [1992] UKEAT 522_91_2001
20 Jan 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Oliphant and Another (T/A Windward Nursing Home) v Cater [1992] UKEAT 593_92_2001
20 Jan 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Shakir v London Borough of Wandsworth and Another [1992] UKEAT 84_92_2201
22 Jan 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Nationwide Anglia Estate Agents v Hooper [1992] UKEAT 360_91_2301
23 Jan 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Robinson v E G Phillips Son and Partners [1992] UKEAT 50_91_2701
27 Jan 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Hood Sailmakers Ltd v Axford and Another [1992] UKEAT 684_91_2801
28 Jan 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Second City (Sw) Ltd v White [1992] UKEAT 31_90_2901
29 Jan 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Solanke v British Telecom Plc [1992] UKEAT 340_91_2901
29 Jan 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Starr v British Railways Board [1992] UKEAT 613_91_2901
29 Jan 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Thomas Cook Group Ltd v Morris [1992] UKEAT 19_90_0302
3 Feb 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Aris v Wagstaff Bros Ltd [1992] UKEAT 192_92_0402
4 Feb 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Mabey Hire Co Ltd v Richens [1992] UKEAT 207_90_0402
4 Feb 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Kwik-Fit (GB) Ltd v Lineham Gazette, 05 February 1992; [1991] UKEAT 250_91_2410; [1992] ICR 183; [1992] IRLR 156
5 Feb 1992
EAT
Wood J
Employment
The applicant claimed unfair dismissal. The employer replied that the employee had resigned. Held: The employer's appeal was dismissed. The resignation had taken place in a heated moment, and it was not conclusive. An employer may not be able to rely upon a resignation made by an employee which had obviously been made in the heat of the moment. Constructive dismissal might still be a possibility. However (Wood J) "As we have said the industrial members take the view that the way in which this industrial tribunal have expressed themselves puts too high a burden upon employers. If words of resignation are unambiguous then prima facie an employer is entitled to treat them as such, but in the field of employment personalities constitute an important consideration. Words may be spoken or actions expressed in temper or in the heat of the moment or under extreme pressure ("being jostled into a decision") and indeed the intellectual make-up of an employee may be relevant: (and he gives a citation). These we refer to as `special circumstances'. Where `special circumstances' arise it may be unreasonable for an employer to assume a resignation and to accept it forthwith. A reasonable period of time should be allowed to lapse and if circumstances arise during that period which put the employer on notice that that further inquiry is desirable to see whether the resignation was really intended and can properly be assumed, then such inquiry is ignored at the employer's risk. He runs the risk that ultimately evidence may be forthcoming which indicates that in the `special circumstances' the intention to resign was not the correct interpretation when the facts are judged objectively".
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Bowers v Harris Office Supplies Ltd [1992] UKEAT 567_91_0602
6 Feb 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Luke v Navy Army and Airforce Institutes [1992] UKEAT 223_90_0602
6 Feb 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Burkett and others v Pendletons (Sweets) Ltd [1992] UKEAT 167_90_0702
7 Feb 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Cardiff Women's Aid v Hartup [1992] UKEAT 761_93_0802
8 Feb 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Humber Workforce Contractors Ltd v Langley and others [1992] UKEAT 369_91_1002
10 Feb 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Cold Drawn Tubes Ltd v Middleton [1992] UKEAT 26_91_1202
12 Feb 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Pitman v Drake and Scull Engineering Ltd [1992] UKEAT 103_90_1302
13 Feb 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Solman v Balbes [1992] UKEAT 395_90_1402
14 Feb 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Collins v Noble (T/A Rafters) and Another [1992] UKEAT 270_90_1402
14 Feb 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Bright v Walters and others [1992] UKEAT 241_92_1502
15 Feb 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Provincial Insurance Plc v Loxley [1992] UKEAT 161_90_1702
17 Feb 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Surelock Mcgill Ltd v Masih [1992] UKEAT 616_92_1702
17 Feb 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
M Aslam v Yorkshire Rider Ltd [1992] UKEAT 452_89_1702
17 Feb 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Iredale v Holland and Barrett Ltd [1992] UKEAT 148_91_1802
18 Feb 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Dixon v T D Bridger Ltd [1992] UKEAT 664_91_1802
18 Feb 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
E I Rogoff Ltd v De Vries [1992] UKEAT 718_91_1802
18 Feb 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Doyle and Others v Northumbria Probation Committee Gazette, 19 February 1992
19 Feb 1992
QBD

Employment
The right to seek a private law remedy after withdrawal of the right to claim some expenses on financial grounds was not lost despite there also being a public remedy because of public law elements in the decision. The matter was essentially one of contract between the parties.

 
Dawson v B P Shipping Ltd [1992] UKEAT 100_90_1902
19 Feb 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Dabell v Nofotec Co Ltd [1992] UKEAT 149_90_2002
20 Feb 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Naidu v West Lambeth Health Authority [1992] UKEAT 17_92_2102
21 Feb 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Rogers v Northumbria Leisure Ltd (T/A Border Travel) [1992] UKEAT 321_90_2602
26 Feb 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Josiah Parkes and Sons Ltd v Smith [1992] UKEAT 259_90_2702
27 Feb 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Smith v Legal and General Assurance Society Ltd [1992] UKEAT 526_91_2702
27 Feb 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Rafter v Lucas Yuasa Batteries Ltd [1992] UKEAT 506_90_2802
28 Feb 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Ransomes Sims and Jefferies Ltd v Tatterton [1992] UKEAT 148_902_2802
28 Feb 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Norton v Trevelyans (Birmingham) Ltd [1992] UKEAT 102_91_1003
10 Mar 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Westwood Tools Ltd v Cawte [1992] UKEAT 31_92_1003
10 Mar 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Pitman v David Hill and Co [1992] UKEAT 518_91_1003
10 Mar 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Khars v High Table Ltd [1992] UKEAT 311_90_1103
11 Mar 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Pickup v Sension Ltd [1992] UKEAT 169_91_1603
16 Mar 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
B J Doyle v London Borough of Hackney [1992] UKEAT 458_88_1603
16 Mar 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Bingham v Hobourn Engineering Ltd [1992] UKEAT 444_90_1703
17 Mar 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
O'Connor v Brian Smith Catering Services [1992] UKEAT 5_91_1803
18 Mar 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Bukhari v Custom and Excise [1992] UKEAT 271_90_1903
19 Mar 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Hosny v General Medical Council [1992] UKEAT 275_90_2003
20 Mar 1992
EAT

Employment

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Springboard Sunderland Trust v Robson [1992] UKEAT 17_90_2303
23 Mar 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Doncaster Education Authority v Gill [1992] UKEAT 568_89_2403
24 Mar 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Byrne v BOC Ltd [1992] UKEAT 231_90_2503
25 Mar 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Nairn and Another v Bht (Scotland) Ltd [1992] UKEAT 358_90_2603
26 Mar 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Indrayen v John Delaney- Access Hotels (London) Ltd [1992] UKEAT 399_91_2603
26 Mar 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Associated Newspapers Ltd v Wilson [1992] UKEAT 612_90_2603
26 Mar 1992
EAT

Employment

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Leeds Private Hospital Ltd v Parkin [1992] UKEAT 519_89_3003
30 Mar 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Sister Rose Ltd v Garratt [1992] UKEAT 101_90_3003
30 Mar 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Hellyer Bros Ltd v Atkinson and Another [1992] UKEAT 630_90_3103
31 Mar 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Friday Ad Print Ltd v Hunter [1992] UKEAT 225_92_0304
3 Apr 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
London Borough of Barking and Dagenham v Camara [1992] UKEAT 85_90_0604
6 Apr 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Wright v Sharjah Research [1992] UKEAT 163_92_0704
7 Apr 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
St John of God (Care Services) Ltd v Brooks and others [1992] UKEAT 152_90_0804; [1992] ICR 715
8 Apr 1992
EAT
Knox J
Employment
The appellant had suffered a reduction in its income. It made an offer to staff, on the point of dismissing for refusal to sign, of less favourable terms, including reduced pay and holiday entitlement and the abolition of overtime rates for weekend and bank holiday work. The Tribunal held that no reasonable employer should have expected the Applicants to accept the new contracts, and the dismissals were unfair. Held. The employer's appeal succeeded. There was a danger in promoting the nature of the employer's offer of new terms and conditions of employment to the status of the sole or crucial test, because that involved a departure from the wording of the then equivalent of section 98(4), which required the Tribunal to consider the question of fairness at the time of the dismissal rather than at the earlier stage of the offer, and "if there is a sound good business reason for the particular reorganisation the unreasonableness or reasonableness of the employer's conduct has to be looked at in the context of that reorganisation".
Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act, 1978 57(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Post Office v O'Driscoll [1992] UKEAT 138_90_0904
9 Apr 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Stowe v Ub (Ross Youngs) Ltd [1992] UKEAT 252_90_1004
10 Apr 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Warnes and Another v Trustees of the Cheriton Oddfellows Social Club [1992] UKEAT 7_90_1304
13 Apr 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Post Office v Hogan [1992] UKEAT 117_92_1304
13 Apr 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Damerel v Devon County Council [1992] UKEAT 56_90_1404
14 Apr 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
British Telecommunications Plc v Ticehurst and Another Gazette, 15 April 1992
15 Apr 1992
CA

Employment
A manager has a duty to serve faithfully. The employer may suspend until an undertaking was given to do so.


 
 Delaney v Staples; HL 15-Apr-1992 - Gazette, 15 April 1992; [1992] 2 WLR 451; [1992] 1 AC 687; [1992] ICR 483
 
National Car Parks Ltd v Amankwa-Dei [1992] UKEAT 162_90_1504
15 Apr 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
West v Secretary of State for Scotland [1992] ScotCS CSIH_3; 1992 SCLR 504; 1992 SLT 636; 1992 SC 385
23 Apr 1992
SCS
Lord Weir
Scotland, Employment
The petitioner complained that on being moved from his employment at one prison to another, he had been told that his moving expenses would be paid, but that they were not. The respondent said that the terms of his employment were that he was to be mobile, and that as a Crown employee his terms of employment were variable at the instance of the crown. Held: Wherever there is an excess or abuse of the power or jurisdiction which has been conferred on a decision-maker, the Court of Session has the power to correct it.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Oxford Polytechnic v Halpin [1992] UKEAT 148_92_0505
5 May 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Callus v Butler Pharmaceuticals [1992] UKEAT 105_91_0605
6 May 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Vega Space Systems Engineering Ltd v Weston [1992] UKEAT 183_90_0705
7 May 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]

 
 Port of London Authority v Payne and Others; EAT 7-May-1992 - Gazette, 02 September 1992; [1992] UKEAT 511_91_0705
 
Pickrose Co Ltd (T/A Long Airdox (Cardox) Ltd) v Jones and others [1992] UKEAT 300_91_0805
8 May 1992
EAT

Employment

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Forster v Bsa Foundries Ltd [1992] UKEAT 312_91_1105
11 May 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Currie Trucks Ltd v Nelhams [1992] UKEAT 441_91_1105
11 May 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Mclachlan v Saddlers (A Firm) [1992] UKEAT 250_90_1205
12 May 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
NRG Victory Reinsurance Ltd v Alexander [1992] UKEAT 35_92_1205
12 May 1992
EAT

Employment

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
BPCC Purnell Ltd v Webb [1992] UKEAT 129_90_1305
13 May 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Harrison v Institute of Energy [1992] UKEAT 231_92_1405
14 May 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Pannell Kerr Forster v Wild [1992] UKEAT 301_91_1405
14 May 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Senthilnathan v British Airways Plc [1992] UKEAT 615_91_1405
14 May 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Peet v Nottinghamshire County Council [1992] EWCA Civ 1; [1992] IRLR 362; [1992] ICR 706
15 May 1992
CA
Lord Donaldson MR, Balcombe LJ, Sir John Megaw
Employment

[ Bailii ]

 
 Cambridge and District Co-Operative Society Ltd v Ruse; EAT 15-May-1992 - [1992] UKEAT 266_90_1505; [1993] IRLR 156
 
Frames Snooker Centre v Boyce [1992] UKEAT 265_90_1805
18 May 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Stewart v Neotronics Ltd [1992] UKEAT 83_92_1905
19 May 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Cavaciuti v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham [1992] UKEAT 246_91_1905
19 May 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Redmond Stichting v Bartol and others (Judgment) C-29/91; [1992] ECR I-3189; [1992] EUECJ C-29/91
19 May 1992
ECJ

European, Employment
Europa Article 1(1) of Council 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 the expression "legal transfer" covers a situation in which a public authority decides to terminate the subsidy paid to one legal person, as a result of which the activities of that legal person are fully and definitively terminated, and to transfer it to another legal person with a similar aim.
The expression "transfer of an undertaking, business or part of a business" contained in Article 1(1) of Directive 77/187 refers to the case in which the entity in question has retained its identity. In order to ascertain whether or not there has been such a transfer, it is necessary to determine, having regard to all the factual circumstances characterizing the operation in question, whether the functions performed are in fact carried out or resumed by the new legal person with the same or similar activities, it being understood that activities of a special nature which constitute independent functions may, where appropriate, be equated with a business or part of a business within the meaning of the directive.
Directive 77/187 1(1)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Green v Roberts [1992] UKEAT 508_91_2005
20 May 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Kenwood Ltd v Austin [1992] UKEAT 388_90_2105
21 May 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Sykes v Bmp Ddb Needham Worldwide Ltd [1992] UKEAT 382_90_2105
21 May 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Noble Raredon Plc v Heaton [1992] UKEAT 278_92_2205
22 May 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Mchugh v Hempsall Bulk Transport Ltd [1992] UKEAT 410_90_0106
1 Jun 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Mitchell v Sherburn Stone Co Ltd [1992] UKEAT 598_90_0206
2 Jun 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
BAA Plc v Quinton [1992] UKEAT 498_91_0406
4 Jun 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
South Manchester Health Authority v O'Mahoney [1992] UKEAT 418_90_0506
5 Jun 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Hobbs v Channel Group Plc [1992] UKEAT 234_91_0806
8 Jun 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Payer v British Telecommunications Plc [1992] UKEAT 239_92_0806
8 Jun 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Trefoil Steel Co Ltd v Watson [1992] UKEAT 187_91_0806
8 Jun 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Denness v Joseph Bentley Ltd [1992] UKEAT 266_91_0906
9 Jun 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Rushton v Harcros Timber and Building Supplies Ltd [1992] UKEAT 402_90_0906
9 Jun 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Ministry of Defence v Irvine [1992] UKEAT 432_90_1106
11 Jun 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Select Appointments Plc v Vandenberghe [1992] UKEAT 587_91_1206
12 Jun 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
East Berkshire Health Authority v Matadeen Gazette, 29 July 1992; [1992] UKEAT 599_89_1606
16 Jun 1992
EAT

Employment
A perverse IT finding was reversible by the EAT. This was a dismissal for nuisance calls made at work.
[ Bailii ]
 
Cannon v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council [1992] UKEAT 406_90_1706
17 Jun 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Save and Prosper Group Ltd v Saffin [1992] UKEAT 399_92_1806
18 Jun 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Sheppard v Post Office [1992] UKEAT 373_90_1806
18 Jun 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Burglarm Security Ltd v Ferguson [1992] UKEAT 533_91_1906
19 Jun 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Ramsden v Micro Plastics International Ltd [1992] UKEAT 72_91_2206
22 Jun 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Brown v Ministry of Defence [1992] UKEAT 52_91_2306
23 Jun 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Preston v J Smith and Sons (Clerkenwell) Ltd [1992] UKEAT 381_90_2306
23 Jun 1992
EAT

Employment

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and Another v Halliday [1992] UKEAT 179_92_2406
24 Jun 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Comber v Harmony Inns [1992] UKEAT 420_92_2406
24 Jun 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Ahmed v Tower Hamlets Law Centre [1992] UKEAT 388_92_2506
25 Jun 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Alexander v Treasury Solicitor [1992] UKEAT 587_90_2506
25 Jun 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Independent Research Services Ltd v Catterall [1992] UKEAT 279_92_2606; [1993] ICR 1
26 Jun 1992
EAT
Knox J
Employment, Litigation Practice
The claimant was a director of the employer's company. He claimed that the relationship of trust and confidence with the company had been undermined so far as to be a repudiatory breach of the contract. Before his complaint of unfair dismissal, he wrote without prejudice to the employers offering to stay a full time employee with a payment for ceasing to act as a director. At an interlocutory hearing the Chairman refused to admit the letter in evidence. The employers appealed saying that the "without prejudice" letter was inconsistent with the his assertion that the relationship of trust and confidence had been undermined and that it should be admitted as an exception to the general principle of exclusion. Held: The employee's appeal failed. The principles for excluding "without prejudice" correspondence in a Court applied equally to proceedings in Industrial Tribunals. The letter would only be admissible if it came within a recognised exception to the general principle, namely that there would be an abuse of the rule if it was applied to exclude the "without prejudice" correspondence. The appropriate test was whether, if the "without prejudice" material were suppressed, something amounting to a dishonest case would be prosecuted, and that since there was no such dishonesty in the present case, the privilege should remain.
Knox J said: "As often happens in difficult cases two well established and valuable legal principles collide. One is that it is desirable that courts and tribunals should have all the available material before them with which to arrive at a just conclusion in accordance with law. The other is that it is desirable that parties should be in a position freely to negotiate a compromise of their disputes without having what they say in the course of those negotiations revealed subsequently and used against them in litigation or proceedings before a tribunal. There is inevitably going to be a contradiction or conflict where an admission, or a statement of present intention, is made which conflicts with the parties' pleaded case and we quite see that in the present circumstances there is going to be a difficult conflict between the proposition that the applicant's trust and confidence was destroyed in late April 1991 and remained destroyed to 13 May and on the other hand his willingness to continue as an employee if certain financial inducements were forthcoming. But the existence of the conflict is not of itself, in our view, sufficient to warrant our giving priority to the first of the two principles, namely, that the courts should have all available material before them, over the other, namely, protection for "without prejudice" correspondence. It seems to us, particularly having regard to the authorities that are collected in Mr. Foskett's book, that the yardstick that should be applied in this category of cases is whether the "without prejudice" material involves, if it is suppressed, something amounting to a dishonest case being prosecuted if the pleaded case continues. The nearest example amongst the quoted cases in Mr. Foskett's book, to which we were referred, is a decision of Mr. Anthony May Q.C., Hawick Jersey international Ltd. v. Caplan, The Times, 11 March 1988, and the account given of it is this:
"P claimed a repayment of a loan to D of £10,000 made by means of a cheque. D denied the transaction was a loan because he had supplied £10,000 cash. D secretly tape recorded a "without prejudice" meeting at which (a) P did not dispute and indeed accepted D's repeated assertions that the transaction was not a loan but one involving an exchange for £10,000 in cash and (b) P expressly or impliedly said that the proceedings were brought to persuade D to reach a fairer settlement or to settle other differences."
and Mr. May, sitting as a deputy judge of the Queen's Bench Division, held that P was threatening to persist with dishonest proceedings and accordingly that "without prejudice" privilege did not apply to the discussion. Other more extreme examples are given of threats in the nature of blackmail and other wholly undesirable and, indeed, criminal activities which cannot be indulged in cloaked under the privilege of "without prejudice".
We have therefore looked to see whether we are of the view that the exclusion of the "without prejudice" material and persistence in the applicant's case as pleaded in his originating application involves something in the nature of dishonest conduct on his part. Tested by that test we conclude that the material should remain hidden from the industrial tribunal because we do not think that there is dishonesty involved in such an attitude."
Industrial Tribunals (Rules of Procedure) Regulations 1985 (SI 1985 NO 16)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Kataorha v Butlers Warehousing and Distribution Ltd [1992] UKEAT 354_90_2906
29 Jun 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Gosling v the Ford Motor Co Ltd [1992] UKEAT 221_90_2906
29 Jun 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
C S E Aviation Ltd v Hickling [1992] UKEAT 564_91_0107
1 Jul 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Hilton v Layley [1992] UKEAT 358_92_0107
1 Jul 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Wheeler v Marshall Plastics Ltd [1992] UKEAT 364_91_0107
1 Jul 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Korea Exchange Bank v Merkel [1992] UKEAT 436_90_0207
2 Jul 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Thomas v Gelpack Excelsior Ltd [1992] UKEAT 619_90_0607
6 Jul 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames v Buckle [1992] UKEAT 591_90_0707
7 Jul 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
The National Grid Company Plc v Virdee [1992] UKEAT 301_92_0707
7 Jul 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Trask v Strayfield International Ltd [1992] UKEAT 614_91_0707
7 Jul 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Wright v David Davis Associates and Another [1992] UKEAT 101_92_0707
7 Jul 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Crown Leisure Ltd v Shaw [1992] UKEAT 618_90_0807
8 Jul 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Yeung v Tower Hamlets Association for Racial Equality [1992] UKEAT 277_90_0807
8 Jul 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Peacocks Stores Ltd v Penticost [1992] UKEAT 410_91_0907
9 Jul 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Willetts v Quicks Group Plc [1992] UKEAT 305_90_0907
9 Jul 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Moore v Marconi Communication Systems Ltd [1992] UKEAT 288_91_1007
10 Jul 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Vauxhall Motors Ltd v Ghafoor [1992] UKEAT 367_90_1007
10 Jul 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
British Railways Board v Powell [1992] UKEAT 416_91_1307
13 Jul 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Chapman and Another v Simon [1992] UKEAT 286_90_1307
13 Jul 1992
EAT

Employment

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Bullock v Commissioner of Police for Metropolis [1992] UKEAT 472_91_1407
14 Jul 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Vega Space Systems Engineering Ltd v Weston [1992] UKEAT 469_90_1407
14 Jul 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
G B M Services Ltd v Oyeghe [1992] UKEAT 402_92_1507
15 Jul 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Guarda Security Ltd v Roberts [1992] UKEAT 394_91_1507
15 Jul 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council v Mills and others [1992] UKEAT 31_92_1607
16 Jul 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
W J Coleridge and Son v Ryland [1992] UKEAT 55_92_1707
17 Jul 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Morgan v Civil Service Commission and Another [1992] UKEAT 312_90_2007
20 Jul 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Mediclean v Searle and Another [1992] UKEAT 711_91_2007
20 Jul 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Wilson v Glenrose (Fishmerchants) Ltd and others [1992] UKEAT 444_91_2107
21 Jul 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Glenrose (Fish Merchants) Ltd v Chapman and others [1992] UKEAT 467_91_2107
21 Jul 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Wells v London School of Economics and Political Science [1992] UKEAT 317_90_2207
22 Jul 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Knight v Avonrun Automotive Ltd [1992] UKEAT 278_91_2207
22 Jul 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Demeshghi v Bank Melli Iran [1992] UKEAT 228_92_2207
22 Jul 1992
EAT

Employment

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Associated British Ports v Palmer and Others; Associated Newspapers Ltd v Wilson; EAT 23-Jul-1992 - Gazette, 18 November 1992; Gazette, 16 September 1992; [1992] UKEAT 99_92_2307; [1992] ICR 681
 
Read v Vnu Business Publications [1992] UKEAT 452_92_2707
27 Jul 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Fairfield Ltd v Skinner Gazette, 23 September 1992; [1992] UKEAT 390_90_2707
27 Jul 1992
EAT

Employment
An Industrial Tribunal has jurisdiction to enquire as to the circumstances in which deductions were made from wages.
Wages Act 1986 1(1)(a)
[ Bailii ]
 
Anderson Marriott and Co v Eastwood [1992] UKEAT 178_92_2707
27 Jul 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Roy v Fullemploy Group Ltd [1992] UKEAT 289_92_2707
27 Jul 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Curling and others v Securicor Ltd [1992] IRLR 549; [1992] UKEAT 40_90_2807
28 Jul 1992
EAT

Employment
The employer wanted to invoke a mobility clause raher than, as it originally set out to do, to consult on redundancies. The change of course was first raised at the hearing in the industrial tribunal. Held: The principle that the employer cannot "dodge between the two" (i.e. mobility and redundancy) applied to the right of the Trade Unions to be consulted on proposed redundancies or possible redundancy.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Freeman v Salford Health Authority [1992] UKEAT 492_90_2807
28 Jul 1992
EAT

Employment

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Post Office v Handley [1992] UKEAT 4_92_2807
28 Jul 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Express Foods Group (International) Ltd v Putnam [1992] UKEAT 189_91_2907
29 Jul 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
St John of God (Care Services) Ltd v Brook and Others Gazette, 29 July 1992
29 Jul 1992
EAT

Employment
The Industrial Tribunal erred in relying on words in Harvey as to an employer's offer of new terms on dismissal.

 
Sahato v Redbridge Health Authority [1992] UKEAT 224_90_2907
29 Jul 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Davies v Rhm Computing Ltd [1992] UKEAT 59_92_3007
30 Jul 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Siebe Plc v Baker [1992] UKEAT 505_92_3007
30 Jul 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Blockleys Plc v D Miller Gazette, 23 September 1992; [1992] UKEAT 644_88_3007
30 Jul 1992
EAT

Employment
Granting review after appeal to EAT had failed would be abuse of process.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Lloyds Bank Plc v M Fox and others [1992] UKEAT 556_89_3007
30 Jul 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Secretary of State for Employment v Parfitt [1992] UKEAT 435_90_3007
30 Jul 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Oxford and Swindon Co-Op Society Ltd v Chambers [1992] UKEAT 502_92_3107
31 Jul 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Dillistone v London Borough of Lambeth [1992] UKEAT 219_90_3107
31 Jul 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]

 
 London Ambulance Service v Charlton and others; EAT 1-Sep-1992 - [1992] UKEAT 618_91_0109
 
Drew v G U Manufacturing Co Ltd [1992] UKEAT 121_90_0209
2 Sep 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Myers v British Railways Board [1992] UKEAT 309_91_0309
3 Sep 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Edale Ltd v Tucker and Another [1992] UKEAT 147_92_0409
4 Sep 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Business Post Ltd v Ballard [1992] UKEAT 263_90_0809
8 Sep 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Havill v Noden [1992] UKEAT 536_90_0909
9 Sep 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
City of Oxford Motor Services Ltd v Nazar [1992] UKEAT 535_91_1009
10 Sep 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]

 
 Pickwell and Another v Lincolnshire County Council; EAT 11-Sep-1992 - Gazette, 11 November 1992; [1992] UKEAT 123_92_1109
 
Ithia v Secretary of State for Employment and others [1992] UKEAT 391_91_1409
14 Sep 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Gcsf v Certification Officer [1992] UKEAT 58_90_1609
16 Sep 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Herde and Another v Mahabirsingh Gazette, 16 September 1992
16 Sep 1992
PC

Employment, Commonwealth
Payment of worker's severance pay did not take precedence over crystallised secured charge.

 
London Borough of Hackney and others v Anyanwu [1992] UKEAT 371_92_1709
17 Sep 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Gallagher v Screenbase Ltd [1992] UKEAT 494_92_1709
17 Sep 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Canvas Covers International v Johnson [1992] UKEAT 273_92_1709
17 Sep 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Russell Berman (T/A Russell Bernard Hair Group) v Jelley [1992] UKEAT 455_91_1809
18 Sep 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Makinde v London Borough of Hackney [1992] UKEAT 652_91_1809
18 Sep 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Beloit Walmsley Ltd v Cross [1992] UKEAT 449_90_2109
21 Sep 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Bell v Wharfe Valley Sectional Buildings Ltd [1992] UKEAT 484_90_2109
21 Sep 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Harrison v Post Office [1992] UKEAT 460_90_2209
22 Sep 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Mckenna v London Borough of Lambeth [1992] UKEAT 350_91_2209
22 Sep 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Mallinson v Bournemouth Polytechnic [1992] UKEAT 549_92_2409
24 Sep 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
George Turton Platts and Co Ltd v Dilaurenzio and Another [1992] UKEAT 524_92_3009
30 Sep 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Richmond v RAC Insurance Brokers Ltd [1992] UKEAT 47_91_3009
30 Sep 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Collins v Banham Patent Locks Ltd [1992] UKEAT 539_92_0110
1 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Racal Milgo Ltd v Ross [1992] UKEAT 450_92_0510
5 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Onuh v London Borough of Enfield and others [1992] UKEAT 431_91_0510
5 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Ingrams v London Borough of Lewisham [1992] UKEAT 442_91_0510
5 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Eccles v Ribble Motor Services Ltd [1992] UKEAT 609_90_0510
5 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Knibb and Plumpton v Liverpool C C [1992] UKEAT 701_92_0610
6 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Gething v Cornwall County Council [1992] UKEAT 30_91_0610
6 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Crugau Colliery Co Ltd v Davies [1992] UKEAT 454_91_1211
6 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Crosville Wales Ltd v Tracey and others [1992] UKEAT 635_91_0610
6 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Plant Movements Ltd v Long [1992] UKEAT 607_91_0710
7 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Seeboard Plc v Fletcher [1992] UKEAT 471_90_0710
7 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Cooper and Another v Weatherwise (Roofing and Walling) Ltd [1992] UKEAT 562_92_0710
7 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Wright v West Cumberland Health Authority [1992] UKEAT 169_90_0810
8 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Anderson v Safety Kleen UK Ltd [1992] UKEAT 306_90_0810
8 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Kelsey v Kent County Council [1992] UKEAT 340_91_0810; [1992] UKEAT 340_91_0810
8 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Kelco Ltd v Casey [1992] UKEAT 525_90_0810
8 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
McBride v Hertfordshire County Council [1992] UKEAT 500_92_0910
9 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Avery Label Systems Ltd v Bannister and others [1992] UKEAT 396_92_1210
12 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Johnson v Entertainment (Uk) Ltd [1992] UKEAT 568_90_1210
12 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
James Haworth Ltd v Winter [1992] UKEAT 410_92_1210
12 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Lazaro v Leeds City Council [1992] UKEAT 621_90_1310
13 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Avdel Systems Ltd v Fortune and others [1992] UKEAT 387_92_1310
13 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Burgess Hill Angling Centre v Barnett [1992] UKEAT 626_91_1310
13 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Williams v Evans [1992] UKEAT 556_91_1410
14 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Uzoma v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [1992] UKEAT 619_91_1410
14 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Harris v National Association of Young People In Care and Another [1992] UKEAT 160_90_1410
14 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Haycock v Post Office [1992] UKEAT 43_91_1510
15 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Symphony Group Plc v Hussey [1992] UKEAT 79_91_1510
15 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Malik v Post Office Counters Ltd [1992] UKEAT 282_91_1610
16 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Atkinson v Thorn Lighting Ltd [1992] UKEAT 532_90_1910
19 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Button and others v Cartwright Brice Co Ltd and Another [1992] UKEAT 347_92_1910
19 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Watson v Gateshead Branch of Royal Airforce Association No 803 and Another [1992] UKEAT 64_91_2010
20 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Payne v Penwood Country Chicken [1992] UKEAT 35_92_2010
20 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Bass Brewers Ltd v Parkes and others [1992] UKEAT 308_90_2010
20 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Babbar v John Lewis Plc [1992] UKEAT 728_91_2010
20 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Tambling v Collmain Customer Services Ltd [1992] UKEAT 485_92_2110
21 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
B R J Working Mens Club v Morrison [1992] UKEAT 630_91_2110
21 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Music Hire Group Ltd v Bathgate and Another [1992] UKEAT 558_90_2210
22 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Carter v Parkside Health Authority [1992] UKEAT 690_91_2310
23 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Sahil v Kores Nordic (Gb) Ltd [1992] UKEAT 379_90_2610
26 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Banor Ltd v Howarth [1992] UKEAT 463_91_2610
26 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Blockleys Plc v D D Miller [1992] UKEAT 644_88_2610
26 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Birdi v Slough Borough Council [1992] UKEAT 506_91_2610
26 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Edgestop Ltd (In Receivership) v McGorry and Another [1992] UKEAT 215_92_2710
27 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Ferodo Caernarfon Ltd v Owen [1992] UKEAT 589_92_2710
27 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Hill v J and G Holdsworth [1992] UKEAT 248_90_2710
27 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Pillay v Lewisham and North Southwark Health Authority [1992] UKEAT 459_90_2710
27 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Yannedis and Co Ltd v Griggs [1992] UKEAT 177_92_2810
28 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Walker v Capital Business Machines Ltd [1992] UKEAT 736_92_2910
29 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Mabry v Bath Association of Mind [1992] UKEAT 469_91_3010
30 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Copps v S Wreford and Co [1992] UKEAT 528_91_3010
30 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Washbrook v Quigley [1992] UKEAT 485_91_3010
30 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]

 
 Clarke v Trimoco Motor Group Ltd and Another; EAT 30-Oct-1992 - [1992] UKEAT 584_90_3010; [1993] IRLR 148
 
Williams v Austin Taylor Comms Ltd [1992] UKEAT 527_91_3010
30 Oct 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Hopkins and Another v Monkton House Educational Trust [1992] UKEAT 9_91_0211
2 Nov 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Bais v Planned Maintenance Engineering Ltd [1992] UKEAT 643_92_0211
2 Nov 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Fairbrother v Sayers (Confectioners) Ltd [1992] UKEAT 475_91_0211
2 Nov 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Valeo Distribution (Uk) Ltd v Barber [1992] UKEAT 352_92_0311
3 Nov 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Baker and others v Rochdale Health Authority [1992] UKEAT 295_91_0311
3 Nov 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Littlewoods Organisation Plc v Hill [1992] UKEAT 135_91_0311
3 Nov 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Charles v Vandervell Ltd [1992] UKEAT 697_91_0311
3 Nov 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Eu v Rusty Casual Wear [1992] UKEAT 633_91_0311
3 Nov 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Robert Mcbride Detergents Ltd v Reavey [1992] UKEAT 144_91_0411
4 Nov 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
D'Souza v London Borough of Lambeth [1992] UKEAT 759_92_0411
4 Nov 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Castle Cement Ltd v Jones and others [1992] UKEAT 343_92_0411
4 Nov 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Gilroy v Ken Bell (International) Ltd [1992] UKEAT 78_91_0511
5 Nov 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Melhuish v John Owen-Ward Partnership [1992] UKEAT 598_91_0911
9 Nov 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Nagarajan v Bell and Another [1992] UKEAT 305_91_0911
9 Nov 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Scott and others v Metel [1992] UKEAT 447_91_1011
10 Nov 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Lincoln Co-Operative Society Ltd v Greenwood [1992] UKEAT 679_92_1011
10 Nov 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Corkhill v North Sea Ferries [1992] UKEAT 275_91_1011
10 Nov 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
H D Plastics Ltd v Payne [1992] UKEAT 247_91_1111
11 Nov 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Szasz v London Borough of Enfield [1992] UKEAT 297_91_1111
11 Nov 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Ann Watson Rask and Christensen v ISS Kantineservice A/S C-209/91; [1992] EUECJ C-209/91; [1992] ECR I-5755
12 Nov 1992
ECJ

European, Employment
Europa Article 1(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 the directive may apply in a situation in which one businessman, by a contract, assigns to another businessman responsibility for running a facility for staff, which was formerly managed directly, in return for a fee and various advantages, details of which are laid down by the agreement between them.
Article 3 of Directive 77/187 is to be interpreted as meaning that that upon a transfer the terms and conditions of the contract of employment or employment relationship relating to wages, in particular those relating to the date of payment and the composition of wages, cannot be altered even if the total amount of the wages remains the same. The directive does not, however, preclude an alteration of the employment relationship with the new employer in so far as the applicable national law allows such an alteration to be made in situations other than the transfer of an undertaking. Furthermore, the transferee is also bound to continue to observe the terms and conditions of employment agreed in any collective agreement on the same terms applicable to the transferor under that agreement, until the date of termination or expiry of the collective agreement or the entry into force or application of another collective agreement.
Directive 77/187 1(1)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Somasundaram v Contract Cleaning and Maintenance Services Ltd [1992] UKEAT 41_91_1311
13 Nov 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Russell v G E C Marconi Ltd [1992] UKEAT 407_91_1611
16 Nov 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Pembrokeshire Health Authority v Fogden [1992] UKEAT 576_90_1611
16 Nov 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Mcgarry v British Railways Board [1992] UKEAT 63_91_1611
16 Nov 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Dootson v Stoves Ltd [1992] UKEAT 486_90_1711
17 Nov 1992
EAT
Wood P
Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Reid v Durabella Ltd (Fomerly Phoenix Floors Ltd) [1992] UKEAT 457_90_1711
17 Nov 1992
EAT

Employment

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Fannon v Mfi Furniture Centres Ltd [1992] UKEAT 657_92_1711
17 Nov 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Shannon and others v Tyzack Transmission Components Ltd [1992] UKEAT 194_92_1711
17 Nov 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Rahman v Mayers [1992] UKEAT 508_92_1811
18 Nov 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Forster and Hales v Anderson [1992] UKEAT 544_90_1811
18 Nov 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Littlewoods Organisation Plc v Traynor [1992] UKEAT 658_90_1811
18 Nov 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Byles v Xtra Vision (Uk) Ltd [1992] UKEAT 704_91_1811
18 Nov 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
SAS Service Partners v Whalley [1992] UKEAT 561_91_1911
19 Nov 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Department of Health v Bruce and Another [1992] UKEAT 14_92_1911
19 Nov 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Moloney v Parkside Health Authority [1992] UKEAT 623_91_2011
20 Nov 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Ship-Link (Uk) Ltd v Burns [1992] UKEAT 183_92_2011
20 Nov 1992
EAT

Employment

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Barrett v Boxfoldia Ltd [1992] UKEAT 88_91_2011
20 Nov 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
BPCC Western Bindery Ltd v Matthews [1992] UKEAT 551_92_2311
23 Nov 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Salmon v Ribble Motor Services Ltd [1992] UKEAT 51_91_2311
23 Nov 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Deane v London Borough of Ealing and Another [1992] UKEAT 33_91_2411
24 Nov 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Sun v East Sussex County Council [1992] UKEAT 470_90_2511
25 Nov 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
British Coal Corporation v Smith and others [1992] UKEAT 29_91_2611
26 Nov 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Lilian Middleton Antique Dolls Ltd v Whitehead [1992] UKEAT 732_92_3011
30 Nov 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Sharma v Viva Video Club [1992] UKEAT 697_92_3011
30 Nov 1992
EAT

Employment

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Snowflake Insulations Ltd v Kennedy and others [1992] UKEAT 32_91_0112
1 Dec 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Jeffery v Kitchens of Sara Lee (UK) Ltd [1992] UKEAT 42_92_0112
1 Dec 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Barking, Havering and Brentwood Health Authority v Yearwood-Grazette [1992] UKEAT 429_90_0112
1 Dec 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Wallington v Fairview New Homes Plc [1992] UKEAT 633_92_0112
1 Dec 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Connor v Thurrock Borough Council [1992] UKEAT 313_91_0212
2 Dec 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Hull University Visitor, Ex parte Page; Regina v Lord President of the Privy Council ex Parte Page; HL 3-Dec-1992 - Gazette, 10 March 1993; [1993] 3 WLR 1112; [1993] AC 682; [1992] UKHL 12
 
Barclays Bank Plc v Kapur and others [1992] UKEAT 248_92_0312
3 Dec 1992
EAT

Employment

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Shearn v ICI Chemicals and Polymers Ltd [1992] UKEAT 111_92_0412
4 Dec 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Sturton v Lord Chancellor's Department [1992] UKEAT 126_92_0412
4 Dec 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
British Coal Corporation v Pearce [1992] UKEAT 659_91_0412
4 Dec 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Jones and others v Sealink UK Ltd [1992] UKEAT 89_92_0412
4 Dec 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Heeley v Trell Contractors (Watton) Ltd [1992] UKEAT 93_92_0412
4 Dec 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Troll v London Borough of Hounslow [1992] UKEAT 97_92_0412
4 Dec 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Wadham Kenning Motor Group Ltd (T/A Wadham Kenning) v Stroud [1992] UKEAT 128_92_0412
4 Dec 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Chard v Hartlepool Borough Council [1992] UKEAT 202_91_0412
4 Dec 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
British Railways Board v Jackson [1992] UKEAT 146_92_0712
7 Dec 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
St Matthias Church of England School v Crizzle [1992] UKEAT 409_90_0712
7 Dec 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Barrow-In-Furness Borough Council v McMurray [1992] UKEAT 430_92_0812
8 Dec 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Wood v Fylde Transport Ltd [1992] UKEAT 13_92_0812
8 Dec 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Taylor and others v Secretary of State for Employment [1992] UKEAT 165_91_0812
8 Dec 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Pang v Glaxo Holdings Plc [1992] UKEAT 295_90_0912
9 Dec 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Smith v Association of British Credit Unions Ltd [1992] UKEAT 273_91_0912
9 Dec 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Howe v J M A Holdings Ltd [1992] UKEAT 429_91_1012
10 Dec 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Government Communications Staff Federation v Certification Officer and Another [1992] UKEAT 58_90_1012
10 Dec 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Mitchell v Spar Stores and Another [1992] UKEAT 640_90_1012
10 Dec 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Beevor v Haberdashers Aske's School for Girls [1992] UKEAT 19_92_1112
11 Dec 1992
EAT

Employment

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
SGB Plc v Fletcher [1992] UKEAT 642_90_1412
14 Dec 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Cooper Macdonald Ltd v Brown and Another [1992] UKEAT 100_92_1512
15 Dec 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Abbey National Plc v Holmes [1992] UKEAT 406_91_1512
15 Dec 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Kazim Kus v Landeshauptstadt Wiesbaden C-237/91; [1992] EUECJ C-237/91
16 Dec 1992
ECJ

European, Immigration, Employment
1. The third indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Council of Association must be interpreted as meaning that a Turkish worker does not fulfil the requirement, laid down in that provision, of having been engaged in legal employment for at least four years, where he was employed on the basis of a right of residence conferred on him only by the operation of national legislation permitting residence in the host country pending completion of the procedure for the grant of a residence permit, even though his right of residence has been upheld by a judgment of a court at first instance against which an appeal is pending. 2. The first indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Council of Association must be interpreted as meaning that a Turkish national who obtained a permit to reside on the territory of a Member State in order to marry there a national of that Member State and has worked there for more than one year for the same employer under a valid work permit is entitled under that provision to renewal of his work permit even if at the time of determination of his application his marriage has been dissolved. 3. A Turkish worker who fulfils the requirements of the first or third indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Council of Association may rely directly on those provisions in order to obtain the renewal not only of his work permit but also of his residence permit, since the right of residence is indispensable to access to and engagement in paid employment. That conclusion cannot be invalidated by the consideration that, pursuant to Article 6(3) of Decision No 1/80, the procedures for applying paragraph (1) are to be established under national rules. Article 6(3) merely clarifies the obligation incumbent on Member States to take such administrative measures as may be necessary for the implementation of that provision, without empowering them to make conditional or restrict the application of the precise and unconditional right which it grants to Turkish workers.
[ Bailii ]
 
Katsikas and others v Konstantinidis and others C-132/91; [1992] EUECJ C-132/91; [1992] ECR I - 6577; [1993] IRLR 179; C-138/91; C-139/91
16 Dec 1992
ECJ

European, Employment
ECJ 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 is to be interpreted as not precluding an employee of the transferor on the date of the transfer of the undertaking, within the meaning of Article 1(1) of the directive, from objecting to the transfer of his contract of employment or employment relationship to the transferee. The directive does not, however, require Member States to provide that, in the event of the employee deciding of his own accord not to continue with the contract of employment or employment relationship with the transferee, the contract or relationship should be maintained with the transferor. Neither does the directive preclude this. In such a case, it is for the Member States to determine what the fate of the contract of employment or employment relationship with the transferor should be.
The expression "laws, regulations or administrative provisions" within the meaning of Article 7 of Council 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 must be understood as meaning the laws, regulations or administrative provisions of a Member State as they are interpreted by the courts of that State.
The claimant employees objected to becoming employees of the transferee, an attitude which the transferor (who then dismissed them) argued was not open to them in the light of the Directive. Held: The Directive did not have the purpose or effect of compulsorily transferring an employee's employment contract or relationship against his or her will, but that, in such a case, it was for the law of the relevant Member State to determine whether the contract or relationship was to be regarded as terminated by the transferor or transferee or to be maintained with the transferor.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Darr and Another v LRC Products Ltd [1992] UKEAT 442_90_1612
16 Dec 1992
EAT

Employment

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Port of London Authority v Payne and others [1992] UKEAT 277_92_1712
17 Dec 1992
EAT

Employment

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Bestway Cash and Carry Ltd v Sehgal [1992] UKEAT 393_91_1712
17 Dec 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Weston v Metzeler (Uk) Ltd [1992] UKEAT 303_91_1712
17 Dec 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Silk v Egerton (Grp) Ltd [1992] UKEAT 389_91_1812
18 Dec 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
James Halstead Ltd v Curtis [1992] UKEAT 152_91_1812
18 Dec 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Singh v Robertson Tooling Ltd [1992] UKEAT 41_92_2112
21 Dec 1992
EAT

Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
KPG Computer Support Services Ltd v Abayomi [1992] UKEAT 303_92_2112
21 Dec 1992
EAT

Employment

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