Secretary of State for Justice v Slee: CA 24 Jan 2011

The claimant had been found to have been unfailry dismissed by respondent, on the termination of her employment as an assistant Clerk to the Justices. The EAT had upheld her claim, but had at first rejected her claim for long-term and retirement compensation under the 1978 Regulations. On remittal of the case, they had found in her favour. The Secretary’s appeal had failed and he now appealed against that decision. The issue was whether the claimant’s position with the Magistrates Court was such that on her dismissal, she fell entitled to claim compensation under the 1978 Regulations. The Secretary of State argued that, in effect, her role was administrative.
Pill, Arden, Jackson LLJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 23
Justices of the Peace Act 1949 (Compensation) Regulations 1978 3, Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999 10
England and Wales
Appeal fromSecretary of State for Justice v Slee (2) Admn 22-Jan-2010
The claimant had been unfairly dismissed from her position as justices’ clerk. After appeal her additional claims for retirement and other compensation under the 1978 Regulations had been remitted to the Employment tribunal which had reconsidered . .
See AlsoSecretary of State for Justice v Slee EAT 19-Jul-2007
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Constructive dismissal
Maternity Rights and Parental Leave – Sex discrimination
The Claimant was employed as a Magistrates’ Clerk and she brought successful claims to the . .
CitedDobie v Burns International Security Services (UK) Ltd CA 14-May-1984
The employee worked as a security officer for the appellant, which was in turn employed by the respondent to provide security for an airport controlled by the Merseyside City Council. The Council had the right of approval of any employee of the . .
CitedBerkshire and Oxfordshire Magistrates’ Courts v Gannon and Another QBD 10-May-2000
The applicants had been employed on the administrative staff of a Magistrates’ Court, spending 25-40% of their working day performing duties delegated to them by the clerk to the justices. The Tribunal held that, as an ‘appreciable’ part of their . .
CitedBowden v Northamptonshire Magistrates Court Committee and Another CA 16-Feb-1993
B was appointed by NMCC as ‘Chief Executive to the MCC’.
Held: He was not to be ’employed in assisting’ a JC within the meaning of the Regulations. On appointment as Chief Executive, B ceased to be a JC, and became an employee of the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 March 2021; Ref: scu.428228