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
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
The employer appealed against a finding of unlawful deduction of wages. Held: The words ‘any . . emolument’ includes overtime pay, which may be isolated from other contractual terms as to pay. An arrangement under which the employer had tried to defeat a claim for unpaid overtime, by redescribing the basic pay rate failed. The … Continue reading Pendragon Plc v Nota: EAT 18 Mar 2002
The claimant sought repayment of sums he claimed were unlawfully deducted from his salary. He had been off sick for an extended period, and had been paid only half salary. He said that the injury was a qualifying industrial accident. Medical evidence suggested it related back to degeneration which started before he had begun to … Continue reading Mohammed v London Borough of Camden: EAT 11 Oct 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 re-iterated the conclusion that there had been no diminution of the need for … Continue reading Shawkat v Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust: CA 21 Jun 2001
EAT UNAUTHORISED DEDUCTION FROM WAGES Unauthorised deduction from wages – section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996 – zero hours’ contract The Claimant was an employee of the Respondent, working shifts around her college commitments pursuant to a zero hours’ contract. On 6 March 2016, the Respondent suspended the Claimant pending a disciplinary investigation; it accepted … Continue reading Rice Shack Ltd v Obi: EAT 2 Mar 2018
EAT TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS – Varying terms of employment TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS – Dismissal/automatically unfair dismissal REDUNDANCY – Definition Within the Xerox group of companies the work of a Finance Accounting Team was transferred from a UK company in Wakefield to a Philippines company and then taken offshore to Manila. It was agreed that there … Continue reading Xerox Business Services Philippines Inc Ltd v Zeb (Transfer of Undertakings): EAT 24 Jul 2017
EAT Unlawful Deduction From Wages – Unauthorised deduction of wages – section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996 The Claimant claimed he had been entitled to full pay for 12 months’ sick leave. That contention was founded upon his case that the Respondent had entered into a binding service agreement with him (as its Managing Director) … Continue reading Arley Homes North West Ltd v Cosgrave: EAT 14 Apr 2016
fahey_plymouthEAT2012 EAT UNLAWFUL DEDUCTION FROM WAGESThe Respondent deducted sums from the Claimant’s pay during her notice period in respect of incapacity benefit which it assumed she would be receiving. However, before the Tribunal the Respondent did not establish any statutory or contractual requirement or authority for the deductions (see section 13 of the Employment Rights … Continue reading Fahey v Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust: EAT 23 Apr 2012
The appellant had failed in an application for a redundancy payment, after his employer’s business closed after investigation for criminal activities. Upon learning of the investigation the appellant had resigned. The ET had said he might have . .
The complainants were local authority manual workers. The ‘blue book’ governing their terms required contracts to be for 37 hours unless justified otherwise, and for hours above that to be paid at overtime rates. These employees had contracts at 39 . .
In each case, the employee had retired after long term sickness. The Employment tribunal had upheld their ability to claim arrears of sickness pay arising under the 1998 Regulations, as an unlawful deduction from their wages. They now appealed . .
Employee to show company insolvent to claim EAT Insolvent Employer – The onus is on the applicant seeking payment for lost wages from the Secretary of state to establish that the employer company is insolvent. There must be proof of the occurring of an event falling within section 183(3) EAT Insolvency – (no sub-topic) Judges: … Continue reading The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Walden, Kealfreight Ltd: EAT 22 Jul 1999
An employer’s express right to transfer an employee may be qualified by the obligation of mutual trust and confidence. Citations: [1989] IRLR 507 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Johnson v Unisys Ltd HL 23-Mar-2001 The claimant contended for a common law remedy covering the same ground as the statutory right available to … Continue reading United Bank Ltd v Akhtar: 1989
There is no rule of law, to suggest that a sole director and owner of majority of shareholding, could not be an employee of that company, and be entitled to a redundancy payment on the liquidation of the company. ‘If the tribunal considers that the contract is not a sham, it is likely to wish … Continue reading Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Bottrill: CA 12 Feb 1999
The claimant had been dismissed. He said the manner of his dismissal had caused him to suffer a mental breakdown, and claimed for loss of earnings. He asserted a duty on an employer not to dismiss him in such a way as to infringe the duty of trust and confidence. He succeeded in a claim … Continue reading Johnson v Unisys Limited: CA 4 Dec 1998
The Claimant was dismissed by the Appellant immediately prior to a TUPE transfer from the Appellant to a third party. He brought a claim for unfair dismissal against the Appellant alone in which he claimed that his dismissal was unfair in terms of Regulation 7(1) of TUPE. The Appellant conceded that the dismissal of the … Continue reading Greater Glasgow Health Board v Neilson (Transfer of Undertakings; Dismissal; Remedies; Re-Engagement): EAT 16 Feb 2021
EAT Four employees successfully established before the Employment Tribunal that they had been unfairly dismissed for redundancy. The Tribunal found that there had been procedural defects. In particular the assessments in the redundancy exercise had been inadequate and subjective. The Tribunal considered whether the dismissals were fair under section 98A(2) of the Employment Rights Act … Continue reading Software 2000 Ltd v Andrews etc: EAT 17 Jan 2007
Lord Johnston considered the approach to be taken under section 98A: ‘In seeking to resolve this matter, it is necessary to make two observations of a general nature. In the first place, when an industrial tribunal is addressing the question in the context of remedy, against a background of procedural unfairness, whether a fair procedure … Continue reading Fisher v California Cake and Cookie Co: 1997
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio A claim was made for the price of goods which the plaintiff sold to the defendant in Dunkirk, knowing that the defendant’s purpose was to smuggle the goods into England. The plaintiff was met with a defence of illegality. Held: The defence failed. Knowledge on the part of the … Continue reading Holman v Johnson: 5 Jul 1775
The deceased’s adult son sought provision from the intestate estate. The sole beneficiary under the rules was the plaintiff’s mother. The estate was modest; the intestate’s interest in his house (he had been living there with the plaintiff). The widow was found to have a one third interest in it. The judge took the disposable … Continue reading In Re Coventry (deceased): CA 3 Jan 1979
The claimant had been awarded damages for unfair constructive dismissal. The employer appealed an award of damages for the period prior to the acceptance by the employee of the repudiatory breach. Held: Where a claimant’s losses arose before the dismissal actually occurred, she might have a separate claim for damages, but that claim was only … Continue reading GAB Robins (UK) Ltd v Triggs: CA 30 Jan 2008
Women had taken extended maternity leave, but having followed the procedures, had been unable for illness to return to work on the day they had notified. The employer then asserted that the claimants had resigned. The EAT had confirm that they had not been unfairly dismissed. Held: The legislation provided ‘special protection for the security … Continue reading Kwik Save Stores Limited v Greaves; Crees v Royal London Mutual Insurance Society Limited: CA 20 Jan 1998
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
EAT Maternity Rights and Parental Leave Sex discriminationUnfair dismissal The Tribunal erred in concluding there was a discriminatory dismissal on the grounds that the Claimant had taken maternity leave, contrary to section 3A of the SDA, section 99 of the 1996 Act and paragraph 20 of MAPLE, when in the light of the Tribunal’s own … Continue reading SG Petch Ltd v English-Stewart: EAT 31 Oct 2012
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
Practice and Procedure The claim form which alleged unfair dismissal contained an indication of a claim of unfair dismissal pursuant to section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA). The strike out was made on the basis that the Appellant had insufficient continuity of employment to pursue an unfair dismissal claim. This was correct in respect … Continue reading Stubbs v Grafters Ltd: EAT 31 May 2022
EAT UNLAWFUL DEDUCTION FROM WAGESThe Claimants claimed that the Respondent had wrongly evaluated their jobs under the applicable job evaluation scheme. They contended that properly evaluated they would have been awarded higher scores entitling them to a higher Grade, (Grade 7 or 8). They brought claims for deduction from wages under the Employment Rights Act … Continue reading Kingston Upon Hull City Council v Schofield and Others: EAT 6 Nov 2012
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
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
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSALThe Appellant authority suspended the Claimant after receiving information from the police that he had been involved in dishonesty which had serious financial and reputational consequences for them. There was no contractual right to suspend without pay. The Claimant was not in custody but was available for work. The Employment Tribunal upheld his … Continue reading Kent County Council v Knowles: EAT 9 Mar 2012
The applicant had been born and registered as a female, but later came to receive treatment and to live as a male. He complained that the respondent had failed to amend his birth certificate. Held: The court accepted that, by failing to confer on a transsexual a right to an amended birth certificate, the state … Continue reading Rees v The United Kingdom: ECHR 17 Oct 1986
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
Victimisation Discrimination – Protected Disclosure – Interim Relief UNFAIR DISMISSAL The Claimant applied for interim relief pursuant to s.128 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 following the termination of his contract allegedly because he had made protected disclosures. The Respondent contended that there was no entitlement to make such an application as the Claimant was … Continue reading Hancock v Ter-Berg and Another: EAT 25 Jul 2019
The court considered the liability of insurers of companies now wound up for mesothelioma injuries suffered by former employees of those companies, and in particular whether the 1930 Act could be used to impose liability. The insurers now appealed against findings that some policies, those which insured against injury ‘sustained’ during the policy period, as … Continue reading Employers’ Liability Insurance ‘Trigger’ Litigation: BAI (Run Off) Ltd v Durham and Others: SC 28 Mar 2012
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
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
This appeal concerns the directly effective right of police officers under EU law to have the principle of equal treatment applied to them. The question raised is whether the enforcement of that right by means of proceedings in the Employment Tribunal is barred by the principle of judicial immunity, where the allegedly discriminatory conduct is … Continue reading P v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis: SC 25 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
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS Worker, employee or neither Agency relationships The Claimants were not employees of Respondent 4, on its insolvency the Secretary of State had no liability to them under s.182-188 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Judges: Serota QC J Citations: [2011] UKEAT 0571 – 10 – 1705 Links: Bailii Statutes: Employment Rights Act … Continue reading The Secretary of State for Business Innovations and Skills v Studders and Others: EAT 17 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
Employee, Worker or Self-Employed – Section 230, (B) Employment Rights Act 1996 The claimant was elected to office as a non-executive director of the first respondent; it was his case that he suffered detriments as a result of making protected disclosures and he sought to bring a claim before the Employment Tribunal (‘ET’) under section … Continue reading Catt v English Table Tennis Association Ltd and Others: EAT 26 Aug 2022
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
EAT (Practice and Procedure) 1. While there is no express power provided by the ETA 1996 or the 2013 Rules made under it, the appointment of a litigation friend is within the power to make a case management order in the 2013 Rules as a procedural matter in a case where otherwise a litigant who … Continue reading Jhuti v Royal Mail Group Ltd and Others: EAT 31 Jul 2017
EAT Victimisation Discrimination: Dismissal – Whether the Employment Tribunal’s determination that dismissal was not automatically unfair under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996 because the person who decided to dismiss was misled by the Claimant’s line manager (to whom she had made a protected disclosure) who engineered her dismissal because she had done so was … Continue reading Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti: EAT 19 May 2016
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
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Automatically unfair reasons Public Interest Disclosure Section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 inadmissible reason for dismissal – burden of proof – whether Protected Disclosures – case remitted to same Employment Tribunal for further consideration. Judges: His Honour Judge Clark Citations: [2007] UKEAT 0516 – 06 – 0203, UKEAT/0516/06, [2007] … Continue reading Dr Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd: EAT 2 Mar 2007
Lord Cairns said: ‘A reason for the dismissal of an employee is a set of facts known to the employer, or it may be of beliefs held by him, which cause him to dismiss the employee. If at the time of his dismissal the employer gives a reason for it, that is no doubt evidence, … Continue reading Abernethy v Mott Hay and Anderson: CA 1974
All information available to an employer at the date of the termination of the employment relationship is relevant when considering the fairness of dismissal, and also any information becoming available during the course of, for example, an internal appeal, even post-termination, is relevant. An employer may be considered to have acted unfairly if he refuses … Continue reading West Midlands Co-operative Society v Tipton: HL 1986
The appeal was against the refusal of a tribunal to extend time on just and equitable grounds for the bringing of a claim by the Second Claimant for a redundancy payment under section 135 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal’s reason for that decision was that the Second Claimant would be unlikely to … Continue reading Dhungana v Rai and Others: EAT 25 Jul 2022
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
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
Sex Discrimination — Burden of ProofThe liability judgment The ET did not err in law in dismissing the Claimant’s complaints of unlawful discrimination, victimisation and harassment. In one respect – relating to the ET’s reasoning concerning the burden of proof – the EAT’s decision is by a majority, Mr Hunter dissenting – see paragraphs 61-76. … Continue reading Solomon v University of Hertfordshire and Another: EAT 29 Oct 2019
EAT Lindsay P J said: ‘We have before us the appeal of Mr John Sutherland in the matter Sutherland v. two respondents, Network Appliance Ltd and Network Appliance Inc. Ms McManus appears for the appellant and Mr Napier for both respondents. Although Ms McManus has a secondary and alternative argument, the appeal chiefly raises this … Continue reading Sutherland v Network Appliance Ltd and Another: EAT 15 May 2000
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularityEmployment Judge wrongly purported to decide a claim of unfair dismissal when she had no jurisdiction because sitting alone – Decision revoked on review – Same Judge chairs fresh (full) Tribunal – Application that she recuse herself dismissed.Held: Judge should have recused herself – There was … Continue reading Dorbcrest Homes Ltd v Fishwick: EAT 6 Jul 2010
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Working outside the jurisdiction The Claimants were wives of service personnel working at NATO headquarters in Belgium and in the Netherlands – Because of that status they were eligible for, and they obtained, employment in schools attached to those headquarters – They were dismissed when their husbands’ service came to an … Continue reading Ministry of Defence v Wallis and Another: EAT 30 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
In a case on the issue of sufficiency of qualifying service for bringing an ordinary case of unfair dismissal, the court considered the allocation of the burden of proof in employment cases. Held: The burden is upon he who is seeking to rely upon the exception to bring himself within it. The court also considered … Continue reading Smith v Hayle Town Council: CA 1978
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
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION: Protected disclosure The central question in this appeal was whether an employee/worker who complained of suffering a detriment from his current employer on the ground that he had made a protected disclosure could claim where that disclosure had been made not whilst employed by his current employer but whilst employed … Continue reading BP Plc v Elstone and Another: EAT 31 Mar 2010
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
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
The claimant had been employed through an employment agency to carry out work for the respondent. He appealed against dismissal of his appeal against a ruling that he was not a worker for the respondent under the 1996 Act. He said that the Employment judge had not given him appropriate assistance as a litigant in … Continue reading Muschett v HM Prison Service: CA 2 Feb 2010
EAT Firefighter, who was also trade union health and safety representative, claimed that, having made a protected disclosure, he had suffered a detriment (section 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996) and been refused permission as a health and safety representative to take time off for the performance of health and safety functions. Claim dismissed. … Continue reading Coats v Strathclyde Fire Board: EAT 3 Nov 2009
(Supreme Court of Canada) Human rights – Discrimination – Employment – Age – Law firm partnership agreement containing provision relating to retirement at age 65 – Equity partner filing complaint with Human Rights Tribunal arguing provision constituting age discrimination in employment – Whether equity partner engaged in ’employment relationship’ for purposes of Human Rights Code … Continue reading McCormick v Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP: 22 May 2014
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
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
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
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
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
The claimant sought to continue an interim injunction obtained without notice. The claimant sought to restrain former employees misusing information it claimed they had taken with them. The claimants said that having objected to a transfer of their employments they had not become employees of the claimant. Held: Where an employee did not know the … Continue reading New ISG Ltd v Vernon and others: ChD 14 Nov 2007
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
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
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
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS: Worker, employee or neitherFor 13 years the Claimant worked installing double glazing for the Respondent. In 2004 he signed a ‘contract supply agreement’ though matters continued as before. On the Respondent ceasing to use his services the Claimant claimed unfair dismissal. The Respondent asserted the Claimant was not an employee but a … Continue reading Launahurst Ltd v Larner: EAT 18 Aug 2009
EAT VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION: Whistleblowing / Protected disclosure Employment Tribunal did not go beyond the remit directed by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in further considering the Claimant’s claims after remission to it further consideration by the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Citations: [2008] UKEAT 0088 – 08 – 2005 Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: See Also … Continue reading Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council v Scanlon: EAT 20 May 2008
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
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
EAT Unfair dismissal – Constructive dismissal – Dismissal/ambiguous resignation – Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason – Automatically unfair reasonsDismissal or resignation. The interpretation of s.57A ERA 1996. Mistaken belief employee had resigned when may in fact have been a fair reason for dismissal. 1-2 months off work to care for dependants – held … Continue reading Cortest Ltd v O’Toole: EAT 7 Nov 2007
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL: Constructive dismissal The Employment Tribunal did not approach the question of constructive unfair dismissal in a last straw case by reference to the steps in Omilaju. To take an analytic approach and ask of each event whether the Claimant had proved a breach or fundamental breach of contract was an error. Appeal … Continue reading Muschett v Parkwood Healthcare: EAT 16 Mar 2009
EAT TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS: Acquired rights directive TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS: Varying terms of employment As a matter of construction of TUPE Reg 5(1), a contractual term entitling employees to pay ‘in accordance with collective agreements negotiated from time to time by [the NJC]’ is protected on a TUPE transfer to the private sector so as … Continue reading Alemo-Herron v Parkwood Leisure Ltd: EAT 12 Jan 2009
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL: Dismissal/ambiguous resignation 1. The claimant handed in a letter of resignation to the respondents and he was then given a period of about 30 minutes to reconsider his decision. 2. He confirmed that he wished to resign but he later sought to change his mind. 3. The claimant claimed that he had … Continue reading Ali v Birmingham City Council: EAT 27 Oct 2008
EAT CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT: Whether established Tribunal Chairman correct not to imply contract between agency worker and end user. Judges: Elias P Citations: [2008] UKEAT 0132 – 08 – 2608 Links: Bailii Statutes: Employment Rights Act 1996 Cited by: Appeal from – Muschett v HM Prison Service CA 2-Feb-2010 The claimant had been employed through … Continue reading Muschett v HM Prison Service: EAT 26 Aug 2008
EAT VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Protected disclosureDismissal for making a protected disclosure Employment Tribunal decision upheld. Suffering a detriment for the same reason. Employment Tribunal decision inadequate and committed to a different decision for determination. Judges: Wilkie J Citations: [2008] UKEAT 0094 – 08 – 1605 Links: Bailii Statutes: Employment Rights Act 1996 47B 103(A) Jurisdiction: … Continue reading Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Glencross: EAT 16 May 2008
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL: Reasonableness of dismissal JURISDICTIONAL POINTS: 2002 Act and pre-action requirements The majority judgment of the Employment Tribunal that the Respondent dismissed the Claimant unfairly in breach of the EADR 2004, Steps 1 and 2(ii)(b), and if necessary, Employment Rights Act 1996 s98(4), was set aside. It was made without explanation as to … Continue reading London United Busways Ltd v Salim: EAT 30 May 2008
The appellant had employed the three claimants in his medical surgery, but they claimed automatic unfair dismissal when the practice closed on his suspension from practice and the statutory procedures were followed but not to the procedural standard, alleging unreasonable delay in the appeals. Held: The employer’s appeal succeeded. The employees’ appeals failed. There was … Continue reading Selvarajan v Wilmot and others: CA 23 Jul 2008
EAT Sex Discrimination – Inferring DiscriminationThe claimant sought compenstion for sex discrimination. She appealed a finding of a material factor justifying the difference in pay. Held: The new provisions included reference to the Code of Practice issued by the Equal Opportunities Commission, which provided that the employer should provide a transparent system for setting pay … Continue reading Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd: EAT 6 Mar 2003
The court was asked as to whether the provisions for the reversal of the burden of proof in discrimination cases was limited to findings of discrimination or extended also to issues of victimisation, and as to whether section 5A had properly incorporated the European Directive. Held: The test in section 54A and in Igen v … Continue reading Oyarce v Cheshire County Council: CA 2 May 2008
The claimant said that she had been discriminated against on the ground of her pregnancy having been suspended from her post as duty manager, the company saying that the job involved a risk to her health. The tribunal found that her managers had not conducted a proper assessment, but had assumed a patronising and dismissive … Continue reading New Southern Railway Ltd v Quinn: EAT 28 Nov 2005
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Continuity of employment The Employment Judge correctly analysed the circumstances leading to the termination of the Claimant’s first contract and the start of the second with an associated employer and found a gap of one week so destroying continuity under Employment Rights Act 1996 s 212(1). But there was no consideration … Continue reading Holt v EB Security Services: EAT 2 Mar 2011
The appellant had been employed to conduct driving tests. He had refused to conduct these where there was a driver’s airbag, but no headrest. He was convinced this was unsafe. After warnings as to his dismissal, he indicated that he would if specific re-assurance was obtained as to the safety of such an arrangement. He … Continue reading Sloan v Driving Standards Agency: EAT 26 May 2000
The professor had sought time off to represent another lecturer claiming race discrimination against the University. The University said that her behaviour created a conflict of interest with the University. She continued and herself claimed victimisation. After the case failed, she was herself suspended, and her email account searched from which further disciplinary charges were … Continue reading Fosh v Cardiff University: EAT 23 Jan 2008
The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for unfair dismissal and similar, the decision being made that the applications were out of time. He also complained that the hearing had effectively heard been in private. Held: No arguable point of law had been demonstrated and the appeal failed. Judges: Peter Clark HHJ Citations: [1998] … Continue reading Storer v British Gas Plc: EAT 16 Oct 1998
An industrial tribunal hearing conducted behind the locked doors of the chairman’s office was not held in public, even if, in fact, no member of the public was prevented from attending. The obligation to sit in public was fundamental, and the tribunal had no jurisdiction to conduct itself in this way. The industrial tribunal system … Continue reading Storer v British Gas plc: CA 25 Feb 2000
Practice and Procedure – Unfair Dismissal – Redundancy – Held (allowing the appeal in part) 1. The Employment Tribunal erred by not considering the issues of whether the employer had carried out a reasonable consultation, adopted a fair basis on which to select for redundancy or taken reasonable steps to seek alternative employment for employees … Continue reading Osinuga v BPP University Ltd Legal Team: EAT 21 Jun 2022
The appellant appealed a finding that the respondent had been its employee, saying he was a minister of religion. Held: The judge had been entitled to find an intention to create legal relations, and therefore that the claimant was an employee. ‘The religious beliefs of a community may be such that their manifestation does not … Continue reading The New Testament Church of God v Reverend Stewart: CA 19 Oct 2007
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Constructive dismissalMaternity Rights and Parental Leave – Sex discriminationThe Claimant was employed as a Magistrates’ Clerk and she brought successful claims to the Employment Tribunal that:(a) Ms Slee (‘the Claimant’) had been constructively unfairly dismissed by The Department for Constitutional Affairs (‘the Respondent’);(b) The Respondent had failed to offer to the … Continue reading Secretary of State for Justice v Slee: EAT 19 Jul 2007
EAT Contract of Employment – definition of employeeInsolvencyThe Appellants were a husband and wife who entered into contracts of employment with a company which they managed and which they between them owned 99.99% of the shares (the wife having just 51.99% and the husband 48%). When the company became insolvent they claimed against the Secretary … Continue reading Nesbitt v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry: EAT 10 Aug 2007
EAT Unlawful Deduction from Wages – Ready, Willing and Able to Work As the Employment Tribunal had found that the Respondent had the right to take the Claimant off stand-by duties on health and safety grounds, the consequent reduction in pay was not an unauthorised deduction. He was then paid what was properly payable under … Continue reading Camden Primary Care Trust v Atchoe: EAT 22 Aug 2006
The claimants had been detained under the 1971 Act, after completing sentences of imprisonment pending their return to their home countries under deportations recommended by the judges at trial, or chosen by the respondent. They challenged as unlawful the respondent’s, at first unpublished, policy introduced in 2006, that by default, those awaiting deportation should be … Continue reading Lumba (WL) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 23 Mar 2011
