Murphy v Epsom College: CA 1984

The College replaced a plumber who could do the work of a heating engineer with a heating engineer who could do plumbing work. The number of employees and the work remained the same.
Held: The dismissal was by reason of redundancy because the business needed fewer plumbers; a plumber (one specialist skill) had been replaced by a heating engineer (different specialist skill).
Sir Denys Buckley: ‘Every case of re-organisation must, I think, depend ultimately on its particular facts. In each case it must be for the individual tribunal to decide whether the re-organisation and re-allocation of functions within the staff is such as to change the particular kind of work which a particular employee, or successive employees, is or are required to carry out, and whether such change has had any, and if so what, effect on the employer’s requirement for employees to carry out a particular kind of work.’


Sir Denys Buckley


[1985] ICR 80, [1984] IRLR 271


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBritish Broadcasting Corporation v Farnworth EAT 13-Jul-1998
The claimant employee said that the non-renewal of her fixed term contract was not a redundancy as alleged.
Held: It could still be a redundancy situation when an employee is dismissed because the organisation requires an employee with more . .
CitedShawkat v Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust CA 21-Jun-2001
The claimant doctor had been dismissed. He said it was unfairly, and the Trust replied that he had been made redundant ‘for some other reason’ since he had nt acceted new conditions of work.
Held: The employee’s appeal failed. The EAT had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.214633