Dunne v Colin and Avril Ltd (T/A Card Outlet): EAT 8 Mar 2017

EAT Redundancy: Suitable Alternative Employment – UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal
Application of the two-fold test for suitability and unreasonable refusal of alternative employment disentitling the employee to a redundancy payment; see Bird v Stoke-on-Trent Primary Care Trust UKEAT/0074/11, paragraphs 17 to 21. Effect on finding of fair redundancy dismissal: the Claimant’s appeal is allowed and case remitted for rehearing by the Employment Tribunal.

Peter Clark HHJ
[2017] UKEAT 0293 – 16 – 0803
Bailii
England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.582058

Olympic Airlines Sa Pension and Life Assurance Scheme v Olympic Airlines Sa: ChD 29 May 2012

Olympic Airlines, incorporated in Greece, but with headquarters in London, went into liquidation. The pensions scheme had been run with a deficit. The trustees no sought the winding up of the company under British law.
Held: To be an establishment for the purposes of the Insolvency Regulation the following qualities must be present on the date the petition was presented:
(1) a place of operations, at which –
(2) the company carries out an activity which is:
(a) economic, and
(b) non-transitory,
(3) with
(a) human means, and
(b) assets. OA satisfied each of those conditions.

Sir Andrew Morritt Ch
[2012] EWHC 1413 (Ch)
Bailii
Insolvency Act 1986, Pensions Act 1995, Council Regulation (EC) 1346/2000
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedStaubitz-Schreiber (Area of Freedom, Security and Justice) ECJ 17-Jan-2006
ECJ Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Insolvency proceedings – Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 – Temporal application – Court having jurisdiction . .
CitedInteredil Srl, in liquidation v Fallimento Interedil Srl, Intesa Gestione Crediti SpA ECJ 20-Oct-2011
interedill2ECJ2011
ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling – Whether a lower court has the power to refer a question to the Court for a preliminary ruling – Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 – Insolvency proceedings – International . .
CitedTrillium (Nelson) Properties Ltd v Office Metro Ltd ChD 9-May-2012
Winding-up petition in which the principal issue is whether or not Office Metro Limited can be wound up in this jurisdiction in the light of the fact that, despite its being an English registered company, its centre of main interest is in . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromOlympic Airlines Sa Pension and Life Insurance Scheme v Olympic Airlines Sa CA 6-Jun-2013
The court considered the the jurisdiction under EU law to commence a secondary winding-up in England of a company whose main liquidation is taking place in Greece. That depended upon whether the company, registered in Greece had a sufficient . .
At First InstanceOlympic Airlines Sa Pension and Life Assurance Scheme, The Trustees of The v Olympic Airlines Sa SC 29-Apr-2015
The airline was incorporated in Greece but with an office in the UK. It became insolvent leaving a deficit in the UK employee pension scheme. The trustees of the fund sought a secondary insolvency within the UK, and now a reference to the European . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, European, Financial Services, Employment

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.459890

Bleasdale v Healthcare Locums Plc and Others (Unfair Dismissal: Automatically Unfair Reasons): EAT 15 Apr 2014

Unfair dismissal – Automatically unfair reasons – Reasonableness of dismissal -Employment Tribunal entitled to conclude, following a 15 day hearing, that the Appellant’s dismissal was by reason of her conduct; not disclosures, whether protected or not, which she had made (the ET found, save for two, in bad faith). That dismissal for that reason was fair applying the Burchell test. It was a reasonable sanction.

[2014] UKEAT 0324 – 13 – 1504
Bailii
England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.525194

Saha v Viewpoint Field Services Ltd: EAT 20 Feb 2014

EAT Contract of Employment – The Claimant was a telephone interviewer who worked on an ad hoc basis between 7 and 43 hours almost every week. The Employment Judge made an express finding having heard evidence that the Claimant was not obliged to work any week when she did not want to and the employer was not obliged to offer her work. On that finding of fact her appeal against the conclusion that she was not an employee could not succeed. An alternative case (not advanced before the EJ) that she was an employee when working on specific assignments and that she had sufficient continuity under section 108 ERA was not a viable way of putting the claim since it was not the termination of any particular assignment that she was complaining of but the termination of the umbrella arrangement, which was not a contract of employment.

[2014] UKEAT 0116 – 13 – 2002
Bailii
England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.525184

Whittington Hospital NHS Trust v Nduka: EAT 8 May 2014

(Unfair Dismissal : Reasonableness of Dismissal) – Employment Tribunal finding of unfair conduct dismissal set aside. Factors considered by ET irrelevant to reasonable investigation question. Dismissal fell within band of reasonable responses

[2014] UKEAT 0361 – 13 – 0805
Bailii
England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.525200

Fairchild v WM Morrison Supermarkets Plc: EAT 13 Mar 2014

EAT (Jurisdictional Points : Claim In Time and Effective Date of Termination) – Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity – Whether Employment Judge entitled to rely on last act of discrimination relied on by the Claimant in evidence for limitation purposes, although later incident mentioned in Form ET1.
Held: he was. Segor v Goodrich (EAT/0145/11/DM) and Mensah v E.Herts NHS Trust [1998] IRLR 531 (CA) considered.

[2014] UKEAT 0125 – 13 – 1303
Bailii
England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.525189

Capgemini India Private Ltd and Another v Krishnan: QBD 27 Feb 2014

Application for an interim injunction brought by the claimants, Capgemini India Private Limited, a company incorporated under the law of the Republic of India and Capgemini Financial Services UK Limited in the following terms, namely that the defendants shall not accept custom or business of or in any other way deal with any existing customer with (a), who he had business dealings on behalf of Capgemini or a member of the group within the last six months of his employment with them; and/or (b), in relation to which he had access to confidential information or commercially sensitive information within the last six months of his employment and that such injunction should last until the trial of these proceedings or the 7 May 2014 in respect of the first and third defendants and 14 May 2014 in respect of the second defendant.

Owen QC HHJ
[2014] EWHC 1092 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales

Employment, Contract

Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.525157

Qlog Ltd v O’Brien and Others: EAT 21 Mar 2014

EAT Transfer of Undertakings : The approach to be adopted by an Employment Tribunal to the identification of a transfer by way of service provision change for the purposes of reg. 3(1)(b) Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 SI 2006/246.
Upholding the Employment Tribunal’s judgment: applying Metropolitan Resources Limited v Churchill Dulwich Ltd, Enterprise Management Services Ltd v Connect-up Ltd and Johnson Controls v UK Atomic Energy Authority, the identification of the ‘activities’ undertaken before and after the provision change was a matter of fact and degree for the Tribunal. It had been entitled to rely on the contractual documentation between the parties and no error of law was disclosed.
Natural Justice
As a subsidiary point, although it would have been preferable if the parties had been afforded the opportunity to make representations on the 2005 Government Consultation document referred to in the Employment Tribunal’s judgment, it was not central to the reasoning but merely served to amplify or underline other points that had been the subject of argument in any event. Moreover, had the parties been able to make such representations, this would have made no difference to the outcome. Applying Stanley Cole Ltd v Sheridan [2003] ICR 1449, CA, the parties had not been deprived of a fair hearing.

Eadt QC J
[2014] UKEAT 0301 – 13 – 2103
Bailii
Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 3(1)(b)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedMetropolitan Resources Ltd v Churchill Dulwich Ltd and Others EAT 24-Jun-2009
metro_churchillEAT2009
EAT TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS: Transfer
Migrant Helpline, on behalf of the Home Office; had a contract with Churchill Dulwich Ltd – in Liquidation (‘CD’) by which CD provided accommodation to asylum seekers. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 02 December 2021; Ref: scu.523028

Murray v NuLok (Ireland) Ltd: NIIT 30 Dec 2013

The decision of the tribunal is that the claimant was dismissed by the respondent by reason of redundancy and the claimant is therefore entitled to be paid by the respondent a redundancy payment of andpound;996.93 (9 x andpound;110.77) by reason of the said redundancy.

[2013] NIIT 1754 – 13IT
Bailii
Northern Ireland

Employment

Updated: 02 December 2021; Ref: scu.523021

AB v Ulster Bank: NIIT 10 Dec 2013

The decision of the tribunal is that the claimant was subjected to detriment on grounds of having made protected disclosures. The claimant is awarded total compensation in the sum of pounds 28,792.82

[2013] NIIT 724 – 13IT
Bailii
Northern Ireland
Citing:
CitedBP Plc v Elstone and Another EAT 31-Mar-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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Northern Ireland, Employment

Updated: 02 December 2021; Ref: scu.522999

London Central Bus Company Ltd v Manning: EAT 11 Dec 2013

EAT Unfair Dismissal : Reasonableness of Dismissal – Dismissal found to be fair at disciplinary stage converted to an unfair dismissal following appeal. However, no material unfairness found at the appeal. The highest it was put was that the Claimant was not shown a list of unsuitable vacancies in circumstances where he was not medically fit to continue his employment as a bus driver.
With reluctance (the Claimant had 23 years unblemished service) employer appeal allowed a finding of unfair dismissal set aside.

Peter Clark J
[2013] UKEAT 0103 – 13 – 1112
Bailii
England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.522370

Sinclair v Coventry and Warwickshire Partnership NHS Trust: EAT 28 Feb 2014

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL
Grounds of appeal that (a) Environment Agency v Rowan [2008] IRLR 20 not followed (b) a subjective test applied and (c) misdirection on constructive knowledge in a disability discrimination test failed on the facts.
Appeal dismissed.

Birtles J
[2014] UKEAT 0286 – 13 – 2802
Bailii
England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.522141

Anderson v Cheltenham and Gloucester Plc: EAT 5 Dec 2013

EAT Practice and Procedure : Costs – Claimant failed to beat earlier Calderbank offer at remedy stage. Employment Tribunal made costs order against her limited to andpound;10,000. On consideration of EAT authorities, EAT concluded that ET had failed to take into account relevant factors. Having done so, costs order set aside and appeal allowed. – Observations made about setting off costs order against compensatory award.

Pdeter Clark J
[2013] UKEAT 0221 – 13 – 0512
Bailii
England and Wales

Employment, Costs

Updated: 28 November 2021; Ref: scu.520037

Byrnes v Bluesky Financial Claims and Another: EAT 24 Oct 2013

EAT Practice and Procedure : Review – JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Claim in time and effective date of termination
The issue on the appeal was whether the Employment Tribunal had erred in law by refusing to review a decision that the claim in respect of unlawful deductions was out of time. In effect the Appellant had complained about the course of events at the hearing and about the decision that he was out of time and that should have been sufficient to trigger a reconsideration even though the rest of the letter applying for a review concentrated on reasons why the application had not been made earlier. The fact that the decision as to the claim being out of time appeared to be contrary to the decision of this Tribunal in Arora v Rockwell Automation Ltd UKEAT/0097/06 and thus very arguably wrong (subject to the facts, which remained to be properly investigated), whilst not drawn to the attention of the Employment Judge at that stage and not decisive by itself, nevertheless weighed in the balance when deciding whether there had been an error of law.

Hand QC J
[2013] UKEAT 0067 – 13 – 2410
Bailii
England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.518529