peackockEAT0314
EAT Contract of Employment – DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT
IMPLIED TERM/VARIATION/CONSTRUCTION OF TERM; HOLIDAY PAY
From evidence before an Employment Judge showing that the consistent practice of the Respondent employer in a number of redundancies between the early 1980s and 2002 had been to make redundancy payments based on statutory terms but without a cap on either years of service or the amount of a weekly wage, and some evidence (though generalised) as to the position between 2002 and 2006, the Judge held that a contractual term that redundancy payments would be made without either cap, but otherwise on statutory terms could be inferred. The evidence as to the position between 2006 and 2012 (when the redundancies giving rise to the claims arose) was not so clear cut, and could be said to show an inconsistency of practice. An argument that the employees concerned were not entitled to enhanced redundancy payments (on statutory terms, without cap) was rejected by the Judge. On appeal his decision was upheld: by 2006 he thought a term to be agreed. Nothing since then showed that that term had lawfully been varied. On the evidence, the Judge was entitled to conclude as he did.
A cross-appeal relying on apparent inconsistency of result as between the claims of two Claimants said to be in identical circumstances, was rejected, since one could and did prove her entitlement to holiday pay to the Judge’s satisfaction, whereas the evidence of the other was vague and uncertain and thought by him to be insufficient.
Langstaff J
[2014] UKEAT 0315 – 13 – 2503
Bailii
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 02 December 2021; Ref: scu.523168