Click the case name for better results:

Airbus UK Ltd v MG Webb: CA 7 Feb 2008

The court considered the dismissal by an employer of an employee for a disciplinary offence when he would not have been dismissed but for an earlier warning which had expired. Held: The company’s appeal succeded. The court summarised the balance as follows: ‘On the one hand, if the employer has chosen to impose a time-limited … Continue reading Airbus UK Ltd v MG Webb: CA 7 Feb 2008

Burke v Ashe Construction Ltd: CA 23 May 2003

Judges: Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Potter Lady Justice Arden Citations: [2003] EWCA Civ 717 Links: Bailii Statutes: Limitation Act 1980 833 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Leave granted – Burke v Ashe Construction Ltd CA 16-Dec-2002 Renewed application for leave to appeal – granted. . . Cited – Coad v Cornwall and Isles of … Continue reading Burke v Ashe Construction Ltd: CA 23 May 2003

Dhunna v Creditsights Ltd: EAT 3 Apr 2013

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Working outside the jurisdiction WORKING TIME REGULATIONS – Holiday pay The approach to determining whether an employee of British company who works and lives abroad falls within the territorial scope of the Employment Rights Act 1996 section 94(1) has been developed since Lawson v Serco Ltd [2006] ICR 250. The question … Continue reading Dhunna v Creditsights Ltd: EAT 3 Apr 2013

Clarence High School and Another v Boardman: CA 15 Mar 2013

The claimant school teacher had been dismissed, after a finding that she had assaulted a pupil. She denied the assualt. Held: The School’s appeal against the decision of the EAT to re-instate the claim of unfair dismissal succeeded. The EAT had wrongly substituted its won veiw of the facts for that of the Tribunal. However … Continue reading Clarence High School and Another v Boardman: CA 15 Mar 2013

Norris and Others v London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority: EAT 8 Mar 2013

EAT UNLAWFUL DEDUCTION FROM WAGES – Industrial actionFirefighter objects to being asked to ‘act up’ as watch manager but continues to do so under protest – Eventually refuses to do so in the context of official industrial action being taken by colleagues, where refusal to act up forms part of the action called by the … Continue reading Norris and Others v London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority: EAT 8 Mar 2013

Asda Stores Ltd v Thompson, Pullan, and Caller: EAT 16 Jun 2003

The appellants had been dismissed after investigations satisfied the employer that the employees had been using illegal drugs. Cross appeals were made in the following misconduct unfair dismissal claim. The employees complained of the use of anonymous witnesses. The employer had successfully appealed against an order for disclosure of all the statements taken. Held: Burton … Continue reading Asda Stores Ltd v Thompson, Pullan, and Caller: EAT 16 Jun 2003

Barry v Midland Bank Plc: CA 18 Dec 1997

No sex discrimination was involved in company’s retirement benefits scheme even though it was affected by differences for part time workers, and even though more women worked part time Citations: Gazette 26-Feb-1998, Times 29-Dec-1997, [1998] 1 All ER 805, [1997] EWCA Civ 3037, [1999] ICR 319, [1998] IRLR 138 Links: Bailii Statutes: Equal Pay Act … Continue reading Barry v Midland Bank Plc: CA 18 Dec 1997

Barot v London Borough of Brent: EAT 17 Jan 2013

EAT REDUNDANCY PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity The Claimant worked as an Accountant in the Respondent’s Children and Families Directorate. The Employment Tribunal was correct to find that a redundancy situation was created when the Respondent reorganised the Directorate and introduced requirement for skills the Claimant was not considered to have. … Continue reading Barot v London Borough of Brent: EAT 17 Jan 2013

McAdie v Royal Bank of Scotland: CA 31 Jul 2007

The claimant succeeded in her claim for unfair dismissal, but now appealed against the reversal of the decision by the EAT. She had been dismissed for incapability to which she had contributed by her conduct. She had refused a move to another bank of the branch which would upset her child care arrangements. She was … Continue reading McAdie v Royal Bank of Scotland: CA 31 Jul 2007

Generale Bank Nederland Nv (Formerly Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland Nv) v Export Credit Guarantee Department: CA 23 Jul 1997

The bank claimed that it had been defrauded, and that since an employee of the defendant had taken part in the fraud the defendant was had vicarious liability for his participation even though they knew nothing of it. Held: Where A becomes liable to B as a joint tortfeasor with C in the tort of … Continue reading Generale Bank Nederland Nv (Formerly Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland Nv) v Export Credit Guarantee Department: CA 23 Jul 1997

Luke v Stoke-On-Trent City Council: CA 24 Jul 2007

The employee appealed against a decision rejecting her claim that the employer had made an unlawful deduction from her salary. Judges: Browne-Wilkinson J Citations: [2007] EWCA Civ 761, [2007] IRLR 777, [2007] ICR 167 Links: Bailii Statutes: Employment Rights Act 1996 13 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Cited – Jones v Associated Tunnelling Co Ltd … Continue reading Luke v Stoke-On-Trent City Council: CA 24 Jul 2007

Carmichael and Lesse v National Power Plc: CA 29 Jan 1997

Casual workers employed under ‘nil hours’ relationship still had a contract of employment and the appropriate and associated rights. A court was fully able to determine the terms of the contract. Citations: Times 02-Apr-1998, Gazette 13-May-1998, [1997] EWCA Civ 871, [1999] ICR 1226, [1998] EWCA Civ 558, [2000] IRLR 43 Statutes: Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act … Continue reading Carmichael and Lesse v National Power Plc: CA 29 Jan 1997

Cumbria Partnership NHS Foundation Trust v Steel: EAT 17 May 2012

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL Employment Rights Act 1996, section 98(4) Fairness of dismissal Before the Employment Tribunal it was agreed that the Claimant was dismissed for the potentially fair reason of redundancy. It was disputed that the test of fairness was satisfied. The Claimant alleged that he was the highest scoring applicant for a new post, … Continue reading Cumbria Partnership NHS Foundation Trust v Steel: EAT 17 May 2012

Liffe Administration and Management v Pinkava and Another: CA 15 Mar 2007

The employee had patented in the US a trading system he invented whilst employed by the defendant, who now sought ownership. He appealed a finding that the inventions had been made during the normal course of his employment. The employment contract provided: ‘All trade secrets, inventions, written documents, and other confidential information developed or created … Continue reading Liffe Administration and Management v Pinkava and Another: CA 15 Mar 2007

Kenneth Cobley v Forward Technology Industries Plc: CA 14 May 2003

The claimant had been chief executive and a director of the respondent for many years, but was dismissed upon it being taken over. His contract of employment as chief executive provided that it was to be coterminous with his appointment as director. Held: The tribunal were not wrong in law in identifying the reason and … Continue reading Kenneth Cobley v Forward Technology Industries Plc: CA 14 May 2003

Qua v John Ford Morrison (Solicitors): EAT 14 Jan 2003

The claimant appealed the refusal of her claim for a finding that her dismissal was automatically unfair. She had been employed for less than a year, and had taken several absences to care for her child. She claimed protection saying that her absences had been ‘dependants leave’. Held: When considering such a claim, the tribunal … Continue reading Qua v John Ford Morrison (Solicitors): EAT 14 Jan 2003

AEI Rediffusion Music Ltd v Phonographic Performance Ltd: CA 1 Feb 1999

The copyright tribunal was given a wide discretion for the awarding of costs on applications made to it for licenses. The nature of the applications and the different basis makes it dangerous to import rules for awards from the general rules on costs. The Copyright Tribunal was wrong to award costs on an award to … Continue reading AEI Rediffusion Music Ltd v Phonographic Performance Ltd: CA 1 Feb 1999

Croft v Royal Mail Group Plc (formerly Consignia Group plc): CA 18 Jul 2003

The employee was a transsexual, awaiting completion of surgical transformation to a woman. The employer said she could not use the female toilet facilities, but was offered use of the unisex disabled facilities. Held: The 1975 Act provides for a category of persons who are not to be discriminated against. By virtue of the definition … Continue reading Croft v Royal Mail Group Plc (formerly Consignia Group plc): CA 18 Jul 2003

Reverend Doctor A B Coker v Diocese of Southwark; Bishop of Southwark and Diocesan Board of Finance: CA 11 Jul 1997

A Church of England Assistant Curate is not an employee, but rather a holder of an ecclesiastical office. There is a presumption that ministers of religion were office-holders who did not serve under a contract of employment. Accordingly he is not entitled to claim to have been unfairly dismissed under the legislation. Mummery LJ said: … Continue reading Reverend Doctor A B Coker v Diocese of Southwark; Bishop of Southwark and Diocesan Board of Finance: CA 11 Jul 1997

Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co: HL 13 Feb 1880

Damages or removal of coal under land User damages were awarded for the unauthorised removal of coal from beneath the appellant’s land, even though the site was too small for the appellant to have mined the coal himself. The appellant was also awarded damages for the damage done to the houses on the surface. If … Continue reading Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co: HL 13 Feb 1880

Kaltz Ltd v Hamer: EAT 24 Feb 2012

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL Contributory fault Polkey deduction Employee dismissed following disciplinary proceedings for: (1) misconduct towards other staff; (2) misconduct in attitude to directors; and (3) disclosure of information from staff payroll (3 instances). Employment Tribunal reject claims of wrongful and unfair dismissal but find dismissal ‘automatically unfair’ because one instance of disclosure was a … Continue reading Kaltz Ltd v Hamer: EAT 24 Feb 2012

Readman v Devon Primary Care Trust: EAT 1 Dec 2011

EAT Redundancy : Suitable Alternative Employment – Did the Employment Tribunal err in law in concluding that the Appellant had unreasonably refused an offer of alternative employment for her own reasons, when it had correctly concluded that the offer was an offer of suitable employment which a reasonable employee could have accepted? Judges: Wilkie J … Continue reading Readman v Devon Primary Care Trust: EAT 1 Dec 2011

Royal Bank of Scotland v Donaghay: EAT 11 Nov 2011

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSALSEX DISCRIMINATION – ComparisonUnfair dismissal – misconduct. Claimant assaulted girlfriend (also RBS employee) in circumstances where he alleged he had been provoked by her having slapped him. Sex discrimination. Circumstances in which Employment Tribunal were held to have erred in requiring misconduct, for the purposes of s.98(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, … Continue reading Royal Bank of Scotland v Donaghay: EAT 11 Nov 2011

The President of The Methodist Conference v Preston: CA 20 Dec 2011

The claimant had been an ordained minister in the church. She sought to claim unfair dismissal. The Conference replied that she was not an employee entitled to make such a claim. Held: The claimant was an employee. Judges: Maurice Kay VP, Longmore LJJ, Sir David Keene Citations: [2011] EWCA Civ 1581, [2012] 2 WLR 1119, … Continue reading The President of The Methodist Conference v Preston: CA 20 Dec 2011

Julio v Jose: EAT 8 Dec 2011

EAT NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE ACT 1998National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999, Reg. 2(2)Unauthorised deductions from wagesAll three Claimants were foreign domestic workers employed in the Respondents’ households. The EAT held that the work done by each of the three Claimants for their respective employers was work to which regulation 2(2) of the National Minimum Wage Regulations … Continue reading Julio v Jose: EAT 8 Dec 2011

Jose v Julio: EAT 8 Dec 2011

EAT NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE ACT 1998National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999, Reg. 2(2)Unauthorised deductions from wagesAll three Claimants were foreign domestic workers employed in the Respondents’ households. The EAT held that the work done by each of the three Claimants for their respective employers was work to which regulation 2(2) of the National Minimum Wage Regulations … Continue reading Jose v Julio: EAT 8 Dec 2011

Chamsi-Pasha and Another v Udin and Another: EAT 8 Dec 2011

EAT NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE ACT 1998 National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999, Reg. 2(2) Unauthorised deductions from wages All three Claimants were foreign domestic workers employed in the Respondents’ households. The EAT held that the work done by each of the three Claimants for their respective employers was work to which regulation 2(2) of the National … Continue reading Chamsi-Pasha and Another v Udin and Another: EAT 8 Dec 2011

Udin v Chamsi-Pasha and Others: EAT 8 Dec 2011

EAT NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE ACT 1998 National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999, Reg. 2(2)Unauthorised deductions from wages All three Claimants were foreign domestic workers employed in the Respondents’ households. The EAT held that the work done by each of the three Claimants for their respective employers was work to which regulation 2(2) of the National Minimum … Continue reading Udin v Chamsi-Pasha and Others: EAT 8 Dec 2011

Khan v General Medical Council: CA 11 Apr 1994

The appellant’s application for full registration as a qualified medical practitioner had been refused by the GMC after a five-year maximum period of limited registration. His application for full registration in accordance with section 25 of the Medical Act 1983 was refused by the GMC. He then applied to the Review Board for Overseas Qualified … Continue reading Khan v General Medical Council: CA 11 Apr 1994

Ponticelli UK Ltd v Gallagher: EAT 12 Sep 2022

Transfer of Undertakings; Share Incentive Plan; Obligation ‘In Connection With’ The Contract of Employment The claimant’s contract of employment transferred to the appellant under TUPE, 2006 on 1 May 2020. Prior to the transfer, he had been a member of a Share Incentive Plan operated by the transferor which he had joined in August 2018 … Continue reading Ponticelli UK Ltd v Gallagher: EAT 12 Sep 2022

Street v Derbyshire Unemployed Workers Centre: EAT 22 Sep 2003

The employee claimed that the behaviour which gave rise to her dismissal was a protected disclosure, and that her motive was irrelevant. Held: The fact that what was disclosed was true was not conclusive to protect the disclosure. The court could look to motive, and a bad motive might defeat the protection even if the … Continue reading Street v Derbyshire Unemployed Workers Centre: EAT 22 Sep 2003

Smith and Others v Trustees of Brooklands College: EAT 5 Sep 2011

EAT TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS – Varying terms of employmentThe Employment Judge was entitled to hold that the agreed variation of the Claimants’ salary was not for a reason connected with a relevant TUPE transfer more than two years earlier and was not in order to achieve harmonisation of all employees’ salaries. Judges: McMullen QC J … Continue reading Smith and Others v Trustees of Brooklands College: EAT 5 Sep 2011

Freeman v Ultra Green Group Ltd: EAT 9 Aug 2011

EAT VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Protected disclosureUNFAIR DISMISSAL – Automatically unfair reasonsThe Tribunal erred in law in holding that words spoken at a meeting by the Claimant did not amount to information for the purposes of section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Cavendish Munro Professional Risks Management v Geduld [2010] ICR 125 applied.The Tribunal … Continue reading Freeman v Ultra Green Group Ltd: EAT 9 Aug 2011

Winchester and Eastleigh Healthcare NHS Trust v Walker: EAT 24 Jun 2011

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – CompensationPRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barkebr />The successful Claimant worked in the NHS from 1983 but for the Respondent Trust only from 2006. The dispute about this was raised in submissions on the basic award. The Employment Tribunal calculated back to 1983. The EAT allowed the jurisdictional point about Employment Rights … Continue reading Winchester and Eastleigh Healthcare NHS Trust v Walker: EAT 24 Jun 2011

M-Choice UK Ltd v Aalders: EAT 10 Aug 2011

mchoice_aaldersEAT2011 EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Claim in time and effective date of terminationThe employee was dismissed on notice expiring on 1 February 2011. On its expiry she would have had sufficient qualifying service to present a complaint of unfair dismissal. On 11 January 2011 during her period of notice she presented a complaint of unfair … Continue reading M-Choice UK Ltd v Aalders: EAT 10 Aug 2011

Smith v London Metropolitan University: EAT 21 Jul 2011

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissalVICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Protected disclosureThe ET erred in holding that the Appellant lecturer was fairly dismissed for misconduct in refusing to undertake duties which the Respondent required her to undertake. The ET failed to consider whether the employer had conducted a proper investigation into the agreement reached as to … Continue reading Smith v London Metropolitan University: EAT 21 Jul 2011

Laird v A K Stoddart Ltd: EAT 18 Jan 2001

Appeal at the instance of the employee applicant in respect of a finding by the Employment Tribunal confirmed on review that in the relevant circumstances the respondent employer was not in breach of section 1(1) of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 nor had they made any unlawful deductions from the applicant’s wages in contravention … Continue reading Laird v A K Stoddart Ltd: EAT 18 Jan 2001

Compass Group Plc v Ayodele: EAT 14 Jul 2011

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Retirement UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Polkey deduction Employee reaching retirement age requests extension – Employer purports to follow procedure under Schedule 6 of Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 and rejects request – Tribunal holds, on basis of admissions from employer’s witnesses, that the managers in question regarded themselves as absolutely bound by … Continue reading Compass Group Plc v Ayodele: EAT 14 Jul 2011

Dacas v Brook Street Bureau (UK) Ltd, Wandsworth London Borough Council: EAT 12 Nov 2002

EAT Contract of Employment – Definition of Employee Judges: The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (P) Citations: EAT/492/02, [2002] UKEAT 492 – 02 – 1112 Links: Bailii, EAT Statutes: Employment Rights Act 1996 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Cited – McMeechan v Secretary of State for Employment CA 11-Dec-1996 The respondent as a temporary worker was … Continue reading Dacas v Brook Street Bureau (UK) Ltd, Wandsworth London Borough Council: EAT 12 Nov 2002

Saha v Capita Plc: EAT 29 Nov 2018

VICTIMISATION DICRIMINATION – Protected disclosure The Claimant alleged in her Particulars of Claim that the Respondent subjected her to a detriment because she had alleged in an email of 1 December 2015 that asking her to work certain hours would be a breach of the Working Time Regulations 1998. A list of issues agreed at … Continue reading Saha v Capita Plc: EAT 29 Nov 2018

Reyes v Al-Malki and Another: SC 18 Oct 2017

The claimant alleged that she had been discrimated against in her work for the appellant, a member of the diplomatic staff at the Saudi Embassy in London. She now appealed against a decision that the respondent had diplomatic immunity. Held: The appeal was allowed: ‘the question whether the exception in article 31(1)(c) would have applied … Continue reading Reyes v Al-Malki and Another: SC 18 Oct 2017

Eaga Plc v Tideswell: EAT 16 May 2011

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissalThe Employment Tribunal’s reasons show that the majority did not correctly apply section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. London Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Small [2009] IRLR 563 and Fuller v London Borough of Brent [2011] EWCA Civ 267 considered. Judges: Richardson J Citations: [2011] UKEAT 0007 … Continue reading Eaga Plc v Tideswell: EAT 16 May 2011

Vivian v Bournemouth Borough Council: EAT 4 Feb 2011

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSALAn act is on the ground that an employer has made a protected disclosure within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996 section 47B if it is done by reason of such a disclosure or because the act was inherently for such a reason. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan … Continue reading Vivian v Bournemouth Borough Council: EAT 4 Feb 2011

Ross v Eddie Stobart Ltd: EAT 14 Jan 2011

EAT WORKING TIME REGULATIONSVICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Whistleblowing1. The Claimant was a ‘mobile worker’ to whom the Road Transport (Working Time) Regulations 2005 (‘the RTR’) applied. The Tribunal did not consider the RTR; and if it had considered the RTR ought to have found that the Claimant was correct in asserting that if the Respondent required … Continue reading Ross v Eddie Stobart Ltd: EAT 14 Jan 2011

Brook Street Bureau (UK) Ltd v Dacas: CA 5 Mar 2004

The applicant cleaner sought compensation for unfair dismissal. The issue was whether she was an employee of the respondents, of their client where she did her work, or was not an employee at all. She worked for an agency, who sent her out to offices to work. The court was called upon to give guidance … Continue reading Brook Street Bureau (UK) Ltd v Dacas: CA 5 Mar 2004

Alabaster v Woolwich Plc, Secretary of State for Social Security: CA 26 Feb 2002

The applicant had left on maternity leave. Before leaving, her salary had been increased, but the increase was not back-dated to any part of the period over which the regulations required her average earnings to be calculated for statutory maternity pay. She asserted discrimination, and unlawful deductions from her wages. Should her case be referred … Continue reading Alabaster v Woolwich Plc, Secretary of State for Social Security: CA 26 Feb 2002

Royal Mail Ltd v Jhuti: CA 20 Oct 2017

The employee complained of her dismissal having made protected disclosures. The company said that the dismissal was for reasons of inadequate work. Held: The company’s appeal succeeded. Subject to possible qualifications said to be irrelevant to the present case, a tribunal required to determine ‘the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for … Continue reading Royal Mail Ltd v Jhuti: CA 20 Oct 2017

Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd: CA 17 Apr 2008

The claimant had argued that she had been unfairly dismissed since her dismissal was founded in her making a protected disclosure. The ET had not accepted either her explanation or that of the employer. Held: The employee’s appeal failed, and the employer’s succeeded. It was wrong to draw parallels with prohibited grounds reasons and unfair … Continue reading Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd: CA 17 Apr 2008

Vivian v Bournemouth Borough Council: EAT 6 May 2011

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSALAn act is on the ground that an employer has made a protected disclosure within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996 section 47B if it is done by reason of such a disclosure or because the act was inherently for such a reason. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan … Continue reading Vivian v Bournemouth Borough Council: EAT 6 May 2011

Peninsula Business Services Ltd v Rees and Others: EAT 21 Apr 2011

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSALReasonableness of dismissalS.98A(2) Employment Rights Act 1996The new Employment Tribunal on remission from the EAT correctly found the Claimants were unfairly dismissed for redundancy. It correctly construed s 98A(2) as not applicable where the Respondent failed to complete Step 2 of the SDDP: Davies applied. Judges: McMullen QC J Citations: [2011] UKEAT 0407 … Continue reading Peninsula Business Services Ltd v Rees and Others: EAT 21 Apr 2011

Caterpillar Logistics Services (UK) Ltd v Huesca De Crean: QBD 2 Dec 2011

The claimant sought an order to prevent the defendant, a former employee, from misusing its confidential information said to be held by her. Her contract contained no post employment restrictions but did seek to control confidential and other information. She had obtained employment with a customer of the claimant, and was said to carry out … Continue reading Caterpillar Logistics Services (UK) Ltd v Huesca De Crean: QBD 2 Dec 2011

Locke v Tabfine Ltd (T/A Hands Music Centre): EAT 29 Nov 2010

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Extension of time: reasonably practicableThe Employment Tribunal had correctly directed itself that the evidential burden of proving under section 111(2)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, in cases where it is it is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented before the end of the … Continue reading Locke v Tabfine Ltd (T/A Hands Music Centre): EAT 29 Nov 2010

Canada Life Ltd v Gray and Another: EAT 13 Jan 2004

The employer appealed against a finding that it should pay former commission agents hioliday pay for the entire period since the coming into force of the Regulations. Judges: Peter Clark J Citations: [2004] UKEAT 0657 – 03 – 1301 Links: Bailii Statutes: Employment Rights Act 1996, Working Time Regulations 1998 Employment Updated: 06 September 2022; … Continue reading Canada Life Ltd v Gray and Another: EAT 13 Jan 2004

Lambert v Vicomte Bernard De Romanet Ltd: EAT 18 Mar 2011

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSALProcedural fairness/automatically unfair dismissalCompensationContributory faultUnfair Dismissal under s98A(1) and 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996. Employment Tribunal find 100% contribution and deduction under s123(1). No compensatory award (save in respect of loss of statutory rights).No error in Employment Tribunal approach. Ingram (UKEAT/0601/06. 23 April 2007. Elias P) considered and followed. Citations: [2011] UKEAT 0501 … Continue reading Lambert v Vicomte Bernard De Romanet Ltd: EAT 18 Mar 2011

Parker v Northumbrian Water: EAT 30 Mar 2011

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Estoppel or abuse of process/AmendmentThe appeal was dismissed on issue estoppel. Issue estoppel applied not to the declarations made by the first Employment Tribunal, as apparently decided in the Pre Hearing Review judgment, but to the breach of contract issues that had been decided at that first hearing as stated … Continue reading Parker v Northumbrian Water: EAT 30 Mar 2011

Cross, Gibson v British Airways Plc: CA 11 May 2006

The claimants had been employed by a company with a normal retirement age of 60. The company was sold to British Airways, wher eh normal age was 55. On being obliged to retire the claimed unfair dismissal. They now appealed dismissal of that claim. Held: The applicable normal age of retirement under an employment contract … Continue reading Cross, Gibson v British Airways Plc: CA 11 May 2006

Retirement Security Ltd v Wilson: EAT 11 Jul 2019

Unfair Dismissal — Constructive Dismissal – Reason for Dismissal Including Some Other Substantial ReasonThe ET upheld the Claimant’s complaint of constructive unfair dismissal, finding that the Respondent’s conduct of an investigatory process into allegations of misconduct was such as to be likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of trust and confidence and amounted … Continue reading Retirement Security Ltd v Wilson: EAT 11 Jul 2019

McElhinney v Ireland; Al-Adsani v United Kingdom; Fogarty v United Kingdom: ECHR 21 Nov 2001

Grand Chamber – The first applicant said he had been injured by a shot fired by a British soldier who had been carried for two miles into the Republic of Ireland, clinging to the applicant’s vehicle following an incident at a checkpoint. Held: Rules granting the State immunities, did not infringe the applicants’ right to … Continue reading McElhinney v Ireland; Al-Adsani v United Kingdom; Fogarty v United Kingdom: ECHR 21 Nov 2001

Amazon.Co.Uk.Ltd v Hurdus: EAT 10 Feb 2011

EATR UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal Employment Tribunal found dismissal for redundancy reason unfair under s98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996 on two grounds; (i) selection (ii) alternative employment. As to (i) ET substituted own view as to a fair selection procedure and as to (ii) failed to consider whether employer’s attempts to find alternative … Continue reading Amazon.Co.Uk.Ltd v Hurdus: EAT 10 Feb 2011

Greenwood v NWF Retail Ltd: EAT 18 Feb 2011

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke An Employment Tribunal decision must comply in both form and substance with 30(6) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 SI No. 1861 and failure to do so will amount to an error of law; Balfour Beatty Power Networks Ltd v Wilcox [2006] EWCA … Continue reading Greenwood v NWF Retail Ltd: EAT 18 Feb 2011

Norman and Another v NWF Retail Ltd: EAT 18 Feb 2011

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke An Employment Tribunal decision must comply in both form and substance with 30(6) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 SI No. 1861 and failure to do so will amount to an error of law; Balfour Beatty Power Networks Ltd v Wilcox [2006] EWCA … Continue reading Norman and Another v NWF Retail Ltd: EAT 18 Feb 2011

Greenwood v Whiteghyll Plastics Ltd: EAT 6 Aug 2007

EAT Reason for dismissal including substantial other reasonable adjustmentsReasonableness of dismissalClaimant dismissed because major customer of Respondent stated that claimant was banned from its premises. Employment Tribunal held dismissal justified because of ‘some other substantial reason’. Respondent appealed.Held: case had to be remitted to Employment Tribunal as in the original decision there was no consideration … Continue reading Greenwood v Whiteghyll Plastics Ltd: EAT 6 Aug 2007

Dumfries and Galloway Council v Carroll: EAT 7 Aug 2019

Regulation 4 of the Requirements for Teachers (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (‘the 2005 Regulations’), provides that a local education authority can employ only registered teachers. The issue in this appeal (brought by the local education authority) is whether the term ‘registered teacher’ in that provision simply means a teacher whose details have been entered on to … Continue reading Dumfries and Galloway Council v Carroll: EAT 7 Aug 2019

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Marks: EAT 23 Nov 2010

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL Reasonableness of dismissal S.98A(2) ERA Claimant dismissed for gross misconduct. Employment Tribunal found unfair dismissal but (a) placed the burden of proof on the Respondent instead of applying a neutral burden of proof. It also misunderstood s.98A(2) ERA 1996; failed to make a Polkey finding; failed to make a finding on contributory … Continue reading Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Marks: EAT 23 Nov 2010

Bullock v Norfolk County Council: EAT 24 Jan 2011

bullock_norfolkEAT11 EAT RIGHT TO BE ACCOMPANIED The Employment Tribunal did not err in holding that the Claimant, a foster carer, was not a worker within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and 1999. Accordingly she could not claim the right to trade union representation pursuant to section 10 of the Employment Rights Act … Continue reading Bullock v Norfolk County Council: EAT 24 Jan 2011

Crofts and others v Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd and others: CA 19 May 2005

The claimants were airline pilots employed by the respondent company with headquarters in Hong Kong. The court was asked whether an English Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear their complaints of unfair dismissal. Held: The pilots were employed in England so as to allow a claim for unfair dismissal here. Judges: Lord Phillips Of Worth Matravers, … Continue reading Crofts and others v Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd and others: CA 19 May 2005

Crossland v Corps of Commissionaires Management Ltd: EAT 18 Aug 2010

EAT WORKING TIME REGULATIONS – Holiday payCONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Sick pay and holiday payThe employee was entitled under his contract to be paid for leave taken on the basis of his ‘average’ working hours. In context this was basic hours plus overtime hours.The Employment Appeal Tribunal is bound by the judgment of the Court … Continue reading Crossland v Corps of Commissionaires Management Ltd: EAT 18 Aug 2010

Pazur v Lexington Catering Services Ltd: EAT 20 Aug 2019

lEAT Working Time Regulation 1998 – detriment – Section 45A Employment Rights Act 1996 Unfair Dismissal – automatically unfair reason for dismissal – Section 101A Employment Rights Act 1996 The Claimant, who worked as a Kitchen Porter, had been denied his right to a rest break (contrary to Regulation 10 WTR and his contractual entitlement) … Continue reading Pazur v Lexington Catering Services Ltd: EAT 20 Aug 2019

Weston Recovery Services v Fisher: EAT 7 Oct 2010

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Wrongful dismissalEmployment Tribunal found Claimant guilty of serious misconduct for which dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses; but that it did not amount to gross misconduct therefore the dismissal was unfair. Applying s98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996, finding of unfair dismissal was … Continue reading Weston Recovery Services v Fisher: EAT 7 Oct 2010

Nationwide Building Society v Benn and Others: EAT 27 Jul 2010

EAT TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGSEconomic technical or organisational reasonThe Employment Tribunal erred in taking into account a perceived breach of the consultation requirements of Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 regulation 13(6) in determining that the dismissals of two sample Claimants were unfair within the meaning of Employment Rights Act 1996 section 98(4). No … Continue reading Nationwide Building Society v Benn and Others: EAT 27 Jul 2010

Parkinson v March Consulting Ltd: CA 9 Jan 1997

Reason for dismissal must be assessed in context of the date notice given. Citations: Times 09-Jan-1997 Statutes: Employment Rights Act 1996 98 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: See Also – Parkinson v March Consulting Ltd EAT 3-Oct-1994 . . Appeal from – Parkinson v March Consulting Ltd EAT 24-Jul-1995 . . Lists of cited by … Continue reading Parkinson v March Consulting Ltd: CA 9 Jan 1997

Wedgewood v Minstergate Hull Ltd: EAT 13 Jul 2010

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Worker, employee or neitherThe Claimant employee was given notice that his contract would expire on 1 December 2008.By a letter dated 26 November 2008 the Respondent employer informed the Claimant employee ‘I write to confirm that you can be released today and will still be paid up to and including your … Continue reading Wedgewood v Minstergate Hull Ltd: EAT 13 Jul 2010

Churchill Insurance Company Ltd v Wilkinson and Others: CA 19 May 2010

The various insured defendants had been driven in the insured vehicles by a non-insured driver. Suffering injury at the negligence of the driver, they recovered variously damages. Their insurance companies sought recovery of the sums paid from their respective insureds under the policy terms, section 151 and under European law. Appeals and cross appeals were … Continue reading Churchill Insurance Company Ltd v Wilkinson and Others: CA 19 May 2010

Barry v Midland Bank Plc: HL 22 Jul 1999

The defendant implemented a voluntary retirement scheme under which benefits were calculated according to the period of service of the employee. The plaintiff claimed that the scheme discriminated against workers who had taken career breaks, and therefore against women. Held: A severance pay scheme, which calculated the amount payable according to length of service and … Continue reading Barry v Midland Bank Plc: HL 22 Jul 1999

A and B, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Health: SC 14 Jun 2017

The court was asked: ‘Was it unlawful for the Secretary of State for Health, the respondent, who had power to make provisions for the functioning of the National Health Service in England, to have failed to make a provision which would have enabled women who were citizens of the UK, but who were usually resident … Continue reading A and B, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Health: SC 14 Jun 2017

Sarkar v West London Mental Health NHS Trust: CA 19 Mar 2010

The doctor had been summarily dismissed for gross misconduct. He now appealed against the EAT’s reversal of the finding of unfair dismissal. The original procedure adopted was appropriate to a lesser level of misconduct, but the employer had later used the findings to suport the decision to dismiss. Held: The Employment Tribunal had not erred … Continue reading Sarkar v West London Mental Health NHS Trust: CA 19 Mar 2010

Pirelli General Plc and others v Gaca: CA 26 Mar 2004

The claimant was awarded damages from his employers, who claimed that the benefits received by the claimant from an insurance policy to which the defendants had contributed should be set off against the claim. Held: McCamley was no longer good law as it applied to insurance policies where the employer had paid the premiums. There … Continue reading Pirelli General Plc and others v Gaca: CA 26 Mar 2004

Industrious Ltd v Horizon Recruitment Ltd and Another: EAT 11 Dec 2009

EAT PRACTICE and PROCEDURECompromiseSection 203(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (‘ERA’) deems as void provisions, which preclude a party from bringing proceedings before an Employment Tribunal, save in respect of agreements which satisfy certain specific requirements, which are set out in section 203(3) of ERA. Does that Employment Tribunal have jurisdiction to determine whether … Continue reading Industrious Ltd v Horizon Recruitment Ltd and Another: EAT 11 Dec 2009

Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Bottrill: EAT 12 Jan 1997

EAT Whether, and, if so, in what circumstances, a director and controlling shareholder of an insolvent company may recover from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry payments in respect of debts falling within section 184 of the Employment Rights Act. Citations: [1997] UKEAT 516 – 97 – 1201, [1998] IRLR 120, [1998] ICR … Continue reading Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Bottrill: EAT 12 Jan 1997

Cornwall County Council v Prater: CA 24 Feb 2006

The claimant worked for the local authority under a series of contracts. The employer denied that she had been continuously employed and there was no ‘irreducible minimum mutual obligation necessary to create a contract of service’. There were times when she had no work. Held: Given the authorities there was ample reason to find a … Continue reading Cornwall County Council v Prater: CA 24 Feb 2006

Clark v Oxfordshire Health Authority: CA 18 Dec 1997

A nurse was employed under a contract, under which there was no mutuality of obligation; she could refuse work and employer need offer none. This meant that there was no employment capable of allowing an unfair dismissal issue to arise.Sir Christopher Slade summarised as follows: ‘Principles governing appeals from an industrial tribunal At first impression … Continue reading Clark v Oxfordshire Health Authority: CA 18 Dec 1997

Carmichael and Another v National Power Plc: HL 24 Jun 1999

Tour guides were engaged to act ‘on a casual as required basis’. The guides later claimed to be employees and therefore entitled by statute to a written statement of their terms of employment. Their case was that an exchange of correspondence between the parties in March 1989 constituted a contract, which was to be classified … Continue reading Carmichael and Another v National Power Plc: HL 24 Jun 1999

Uber Bv and Others v Aslam and Others: CA 19 Dec 2018

Uber drivers are workers The claimant Uber drivers sought the status of workers, allowing them to claim the associated statutory employment benefits. The company now appealed from a finding that they were workers. Held: The appeal failed (Underhill LJ dissenting) The drivers accepted the control of tee Uber app: ‘Even if drivers are not obliged … Continue reading Uber Bv and Others v Aslam and Others: CA 19 Dec 2018

Kennedy v The Charity Commission: SC 26 Mar 2014

The claimant journalist sought disclosure of papers acquired by the respondent in its conduct of enquiries into the charitable Mariam appeal. The Commission referred to an absolute exemption under section 32(2) of the 2000 Act, saying that the exemption continued until the papers were destroyed, or for 20 years under the 1958 Act. Held: The … Continue reading Kennedy v The Charity Commission: SC 26 Mar 2014

Pimlico Plumbers Ltd and Another v Smith: SC 13 Jun 2018

The parties disputed whether Mr Smith had been an employee of or worker with the company so as to bring associated rights into play. The contract required the worker to provide an alternate worker to cover if necessary. Held: The company’s appeal failed. Mr Smith was a worker: ‘there were features of the contract which … Continue reading Pimlico Plumbers Ltd and Another v Smith: SC 13 Jun 2018

Clyde and Co LLP and Another v van Winkelhof: SC 21 May 2014

Solicitor Firm Member was a Protected Worker The solicitor appellant had been a member of the firm, a limited liability partnership. She disclosed criminal misbehaviour by a partner in a branch in Africa. On dismissal she sought protection as a whistleblower. This was rejected, it being found that a member of such a firm was … Continue reading Clyde and Co LLP and Another v van Winkelhof: SC 21 May 2014

Walker v Northumberland County Council: QBD 16 Nov 1994

The plaintiff was a manager within the social services department. He suffered a mental breakdown in 1986, and had four months off work. His employers had refused to provide the increased support he requested. He had returned to work, but again, did not receive the staff or guidance to allow him to do the work … Continue reading Walker v Northumberland County Council: QBD 16 Nov 1994

Cavendish Munro Professional Risks Management Ltd v Geduld (Rev 1): EAT 6 Aug 2009

EAT VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION: Protected disclosureThe claimant, who had less than one year’s continuous employment fell out with his fellow directors and equal shareholders. He was removed as a director. His solicitors wrote on his behalf stating that they had given advice to their client as a shareholder, director and employee. The Employment Tribunal erred in … Continue reading Cavendish Munro Professional Risks Management Ltd v Geduld (Rev 1): EAT 6 Aug 2009

Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust v Roldan: EAT 2 Sep 2009

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSALS.98A(2) ERAPolkey deductionContributory faultThe Employment Tribunal erred when if found procedural defects in the investigation by the Respondent of the allegations of the Claimant’s misconduct. In any event it ought to have allowed evidence and considered Employment Rights Act 1996 s 98A(2).It wrongly awarded compensation beyond the 6 weeks it found it would … Continue reading Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust v Roldan: EAT 2 Sep 2009

Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust: QBD 31 Jul 2009

The claimant, a consultant surgeon had been subject to disciplinary proceedings by his employer. They were however conducted in a manner which breached his contract. The GMC had summarily dismissed the same allegations. The claimant now appealed against an award by the county court judge which had limited his damages to loss of earnings only. … Continue reading Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust: QBD 31 Jul 2009

Bells Food Group Ltd v Latimer: EAT 28 Jul 2009

EAT Circumstances in which Tribunal erred in finding that employers had failed to comply with the statutory grievance procedure. Conflation of matters relevant to an assessment of fairness of procedure under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 with the narrow and more limited requirements of the SGP. Citations: [2009] UKEAT 0021 – 09 … Continue reading Bells Food Group Ltd v Latimer: EAT 28 Jul 2009

Birdwell Primary School v Fitzgerald: EAT 28 May 2009

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS: 2002 Act and pre-action requirementsA teacher was given notice to terminate her limited-term contract of employment before a meeting to discuss it. The Employment Tribunal correctly found this was a breach of the 2002 Act regime and automatically unfair contrary to Employment Rights Act 1996 s98A. The correct sequence is this: the … Continue reading Birdwell Primary School v Fitzgerald: EAT 28 May 2009

Countryside Alliance and others v HM Attorney General and others: Admn 29 Jul 2005

The various claimants sought to challenge the 2004 Act by way of judicial review on the grounds that it was ‘a disproportionate, unnecessary and illegitimate interference with their rights to choose how they conduct their lives, and with market freedoms protected by European law; and an unjust interference with economic rights.’ Held: ‘We have concluded … Continue reading Countryside Alliance and others v HM Attorney General and others: Admn 29 Jul 2005

Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc v Wilson: EAT 24 Jun 2009

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularityUNFAIR DISMISSAL: Reasonableness of dismissalAppeal allowed. The Tribunal erred in law in its approach to the questions to be determined for the purposes of section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, effectively substituting its own views. The Tribunal did not, however, evince apparent bias. Citations: [2009] … Continue reading Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc v Wilson: EAT 24 Jun 2009

Cambridge and Peterborough Foundation NHS Trust v Crouchman: EAT 8 May 2009

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Extension of time: reasonably practicableClaimant dismissed for misconduct – Internal appeal panel decision announced orally without reasons two days before expiry of three-month limit under s. 111 (2) of Employment Rights Act 1996 – On basis of oral decision, Claimant believes ‘hopeless’ to bring unfair dismissal claim – On receipt of … Continue reading Cambridge and Peterborough Foundation NHS Trust v Crouchman: EAT 8 May 2009

Bournemouth University Higher Education Corp v Buckland: EAT 8 May 2009

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL: Constructive dismissalWhether fundamental breach of implied term of trust and confidence cured, so that the Claimant’s resignation did not amount to constructive dismissal.Whether the range of reasonable responses test has any place in the question as to whether an employee has been constructively dismissed. Fairbrother and Claridge considered and not followed.General observations … Continue reading Bournemouth University Higher Education Corp v Buckland: EAT 8 May 2009