Morgan v William Dixon Ltd: HL 13 Nov 1911

It is not a matter of law but is a question of fact for the decision of the arbiter whether the demand of a workman, who is to be medically examined on the employer’s behalf, under section 4 of the First Schedule of the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906, that his own doctor shall also be present at the examination, is reasonable ( diss. Lord Shaw).

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lord Atkinson, Lord Gorell, and Lord Shaw

Citations:

[1911] UKHL 45, 49 SLR 45

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Employment, Personal Injury

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.619216

Hartmut Scharf v Commission: ECJ 13 Dec 1984

ECJ Application for interim measures – suspension of the operation of a measure – interim measures – conditions for granting (rules of procedure, art. 83 (2)). Suspension of operation and other interim measures may be granted by the judge ruling on the application for interim measures if it is shown that there are factual and legal grounds establishing a prima facie case for them (fumus boni juris); if they are urgent, in the sense that it is necessary, in order to avoid serious and irreparable damage, for them to be adopted and produce their effects before the decision on the application for annulment; and finally, if they are provisional, that is, if they are without prejudice to the decision on the substance of the case and if they do not already decide the issues of law or of fact in dispute, or neutralize in advance the consequences of the decision to be given later in the main proceedings.

Citations:

C-292/84, [1984] EUECJ C-292/84R

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

See AlsoHartmut Scharf v Commission ECJ 21-Oct-1986
. .
See AlsoF Bolognese and others v H Scharf and Commission of the European Communities ECJ 22-Sep-1987
1. Procedure – third-party proceedings – conditions of admissibility – prejudice to the rights of the third party.
(statute of the court of justice of the EEC Art 39; rules of procedure, art 97 (1))
2. Officials – staff regulations – . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.134002

Civil Nuclear Police Federation v Civil Nuclear Police Authority: Admn 31 Aug 2016

‘In these judicial review proceedings the sole issue for consideration by the Court is whether the term ‘members of a police force’ in section 10 of the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 (‘the 2013 Act’) includes members of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary (‘CNC’) so that any pension scheme made under or in accordance with that Act must have a normal retirement age of 60. Permission to apply for judicial review was granted by Langstaff J on 8 March 2016.’

Judges:

Nicola Davies J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 2186 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Police

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.569398

Schuerer v Commission: ECJ 24 Nov 1983

(Judgment) Invalidity pension – Revision of a judgment.

Citations:

C-107/79, [1983] EUECJ C-107/79

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

See AlsoSchuerer v Commission ECJ 12-Jun-1980
Judgment – Invalidity pension. . .

Cited by:

See AlsoSchuerer v Council ECFI 28-Jun-2000
Retirement pension – Weighting – Action for annulment – Inadmissibility. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.132890

Kircher v Hillingdon Primary Care Trust: QBD 13 Jan 2006

Judges:

David Foskett QC

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 21 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

FollowedGryf-Lowczowski v Hinchingbrooke Healthcare NHS Trust QBD 2-Nov-2005
In the course of an application for an interim injunction to prevent the Defendant dismissing the Claimant until disciplinary proceedings had been completed, the Judge considered the adequacy of damages as an alternative remedy: ‘On the other hand, . .

Cited by:

CitedEdwards 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Health Professions

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.238315

Van Eick v Commission: ECJ 24 Jun 1971

ECJ (Judgment) Application for the annulment of the decision of 14 July 1970 by which the commission refused a request by the applicant for ‘ the restoration to him of his right to be heard in accordance with the provisions of the third paragraph of article 7 of annex ix to the staff regulations, for compensation for the decision of 18 december 1968 to remove him from his post and for redress for the material consequences of the said decision.

Citations:

C-57/70, [1971] EUECJ C-57/70

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Employment

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131946

Cesare Alfieri v Parliament: ECJ 14 Dec 1966

ECJ (Judgment) 1. Officials – retirement by institution – procedure – plurality of connected steps – application against the measure retiring an official – possibility of contesting the legality of earlier steps (staff regulations of officials of the ECSC, article 91; staff regulations of officials of the EEC and EAEC, article 53) 2. Officials – retirement by institution – written form obligatory (staff regulations of officials of the EEC and EAEC, article 53) 3. Officials – retirement by institution – obligation of the person concerned to co-operate – powers of the administration if the person concerned fails to act (staff regulations of officials of the ECSC, article 91; staff regulations of officials of the EEC and EAEC, article 53, annex ii, article 7) 1. Since the various steps comprising the procedure for retiring an official form a single entity, it must be accepted that in an action contesting the retirement decision, the applicant may contest the legality of earlier steps which are closely linked to it. A submission of inadmissibility on the ground that an appeal against these steps was out of time is therefore inadmissible. Cf. Para. 1, summary, joined cases 12 and 29/64, (1965) ECR 144. 2. A decision to retire an official must be made in writing. 3. The guarantees conferred by the staff regulations with regard to retiring an official must not be interpreted as meaning that it is possible for the person concerned to object to the formation of an invalidity committee, particularly by refusing to appoint a doctor of his own choice. It follows from the fundamental duty of loyalty and co-operation which all officials owe to the authority to which they belong that the power to appoint a doctor at the same time constitutes a duty. The administration has the power, if necessary, to remedy the failure of the person concerned to appoint a doctor in order to ensure the setting up and functioning of an invalidity committee, provided that any element of an arbitrary nature is avoided and that the official’s interests are not unnecessarily harmed.

Citations:

[1966] EUECJ C-3/66

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Employment

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131821

Abbey Life Assurance Company Limited v Tansell: CA 6 Apr 2000

Appeal about the scope of protection conferred by the 1995 Act on ‘contract workers’, workers who do work for the alleged discriminator, but not employed by him. They are employed by someone else and their services are contracted out.
The case turns on the interpretation of section 12 of the 1995 Act which makes it unlawful to discriminate against disabled contract workers. The point arises as a preliminary issue in an application to the Employment Tribunal in the field of employment for a reason relating to his disability.

Judges:

Stuart-Smith, Ward, Mummery LJJ

Citations:

[2000] IRLR 387, [2000] EWCA Civ 107, [2000] ICR 789

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.115986

Shawkat v Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust: EAT 14 Jul 1999

A doctor claimed that he had been dismissed unfairly for redundancy and his employers claimed that since he had not accepted new conditions he had been dismissed fairly for some other reason. The Tribunal held that he had been dismissed for redundancy after the re-organisation because his work could not be excluded from consideration. His work is determined by what work he was doing rather than his strict contractual obligations.

Citations:

Gazette 14-Jul-1999, [1999] UKEAT 519 – 98 – 2502, [1999] IRLR 340

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Appeal FromShawkat v Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust CA 21-Jun-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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89199

Sibson v United Kingdom (Case 4/1992/349/422): ECHR 17 May 1993

Employer insisting that an employee join a particular union on a site is not breaching the employees convention rights.
Hudoc Preliminary objection joined to merits (non-exhaustion); No violation of Art. 11

Citations:

Ind Summary 24-May-1993, Times 17-May-1993, [1993] ECHR 18, 14327/88, [1993] ECHR 18

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Human Rights, Employment

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89252

Smith v Safeway Plc: EAT 9 Dec 1994

A male employee had been unlawfully discriminated against when he had been dismissed for having long hair, where the same requirements would not have been made of female employees.

Citations:

Ind Summary 16-Jan-1995, Times 16-Dec-1994, [1994] UKEAT 185 – 93 – 0912

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Sex Discrimination Act 1975

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89342

Sarker v South Tees Acute Hospitals NHS Trust: EAT 25 Mar 1997

CS The appellant applied for a job with the respondent. Her offer was confirmed in writing. When the offer was withdrawn before she began to work, she claimed damages under s131.
Held: The employment contract started with the acceptance of the letter of offer of employment, and even before work commenced: ‘the contract in the present case was terminated by the employer, but Mr Fletcher argues that the employee would not have been employed under that contract, and therefore could not claim for unfair dismissal. We disagree. We have already pointed out that someone is an ’employee’ merely because he or she has entered into a contract of employment. If that is so, to construe the word ’employed’ in a different and more demanding way seems to us to be unjustified. Moreover, we cannot see why someone engaged under a contract of employment to start work at a future date but whose contract is then terminated because it is discovered that she is pregnant or that he or she is a member of a trade union should not, as a matter of principle, be able to claim for unfair dismissal. He or she may already have given notice to his or her previous employer, as happened in the present case. That ability so to claim would make available the remedy of reinstatement which would not be available merely by proceedings taken in a court of law.’

Judges:

Keene J

Citations:

Times 23-Apr-1997, [1997] UKEAT 493 – 96 – 2503, [1997]IRLR 328

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 131

Citing:

CitedHochster v De La Tour QBD 25-Jun-1853
The plaintiff said that the defendant had given him a contract to travel with him and to act as the defendant’s courier, but then changed his mind. The plaintiff obtained another engagement to start before the proposed term. The defendant said there . .
CitedGeneral of Salvation Army v Dewsbury EAT 1984
An employment contract made on or about 1st April 1982, under which a teaching post was offered to and accepted by the respondent to commence on 1st May 1982. The 1st May was a Saturday and 3rd May was a Bank Holiday, so that the respondent only . .
DistinguishedMobbs v Nuclear Electric Ltd EAT 8-Aug-1996
An IT Chair should not sit alone at preliminary hearing if evidence is to be given. . .
CitedTsangacos v Amalgamated Chemicals Ltd and Another EAT 6-Nov-1996
The Chairman of a tribunal may always hear questions as to matters of jurisdiction alone. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89013

Barclays Bank Plc v O’Brien and Others: CA 25 Jul 1994

The court set out and restated the principles for determining what was the normal retiring age in an employment. The ‘Normal’ retirement age is 65 unless the employment contract provides a different age for retirement. A retirement policy does not fail to set an applicable normal retiring age only because the policy allows certain exceptions.

Citations:

Ind Summary 25-Jul-1994, [1993] ICR 347, 1994] IRLR 580

Statutes:

Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 64(1)(b) 109(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromBarclays Bank Plc v O’Brien and others EAT 19-Jan-1993
‘Normal retiring age’ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.78213

Rubenstein and Another (T/A McGuffies Dispensing Chemists) v McGloughlin: EAT 28 Dec 1995

Half only of invalidity benefit received by the employee during his period of notice was to be deducted from an unfair dismissal award.

Citations:

Times 28-Dec-1995, [1996] UKEAT 767 – 94 – 2904, [1997] ICR 318

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

CitedLangley and Another v Burso EAT 3-Mar-2006
The claimant had been dismissed shortly after becoming unable to work. She sought payment of her normal salary during the period of notice saying this was established good practice.
Held: ‘We are put in the invidious position of being bound by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.88911

Adams and Raynor v West Sussex County Council: 1990

The EAT does not have a general power of review of interlocutory orders made by Industrial Tribunals or a Chairman. An appellant must convince the appeal tribunal that the Industrial Tribunal had erred in legal principle in the exercise of the discretion or had failed to take into account relevant considerations or had taken irrelevant factors into account, or that no reasonable tribunal, properly directing itself could have refused the amendment. Wood P said that three questions should be answered: ‘(a) Is the order made one within the powers given to the tribunal? (b) Has the discretion been exercised within guiding legal principles)? . . (c) Can the exercise of the discretion be attacked on the principles in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation?’

Judges:

Wood J P

Citations:

[1990] ICR 546

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBull Information Systems Ltd v Joy and Rose EAT 13-Apr-1999
The claimants complained of unfair dismissal. The appellant company said that the contracts, as apprenticeships, did not give rise to continuous service accruals. The company appealed against a refusal of an adjournment of the hearing.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.403025

O’Brien v Ministry of Justice: SC 12 Jul 2017

The claimant challenged e pension arrangements made for part time judges.
Held: ‘The majority of the court are inclined to think that the effect of Directive 97/81 is that it is unlawful to discriminate against part-time workers when a retirement pension falls due for payment. The directive applies ratione temporis where the pension falls due for payment after the directive has entered into force. In so far as part of the period of service took place prior to the directive’s entry into force, the directive applies to the future effects of that situation.’
Case referred to the ECJ: ‘Does Directive 97/81, and in particular clause 4 of the Framework Agreement annexed thereto concerning the principle of non-discrimination, require that periods of service prior to the deadline for transposing the Directive should be taken into account when calculating the amount of the retirement pension of a part-time worker, if they would be taken into account when calculating the pension of a comparable full-time worker?’

Judges:

Baroness Hale of Richmond DPSC, Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hughes JJSC

Citations:

[2017] UKSC 46, [2017] WLR(D) 478, [2017] IRLR 939, [2017] ICR 1101

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD

Statutes:

Council Directive 97/81/EC, Judicial Pensions Act 1981, Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993, Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoDepartment of Constitutional Affairs v O’Brien EAT 22-Apr-2008
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS
Claim in time and effective date of termination
Extension of time: just and equitable
Appeal against Chair’s exercise of discretion to extend time for a PTWR claim . .
See AlsoO’Brien v Department for Constitutional Affairs CA 19-Dec-2008
The claimant was a part time recorder. He claimed to be entitled to a judicial pension.
Held: The Employment Appeal Tribunal was wrong to find an error of law in the decision of the Employment Tribunal to extend time; but the court declined to . .
At ECJO’Brien v Ministry of Justice ECJ 1-Mar-2012
1) European Union law must be interpreted as meaning that it is for the member states to define the concept of ‘workers who have an employment contract or an employment relationship’ in clause 2.1 of the Framework Agreement . . and in particular, to . .
At SC(1)O’Brien v Ministry of Justice SC 6-Feb-2013
The appellant, a part time recorder challenged his exclusion from pension arrangements.
Held: The appeal was allowed. No objective justification has been shown for departing from the basic principle of remunerating part-timers pro rata . .
At EATThe Ministry of Justice v O’Brien EAT 4-Mar-2014
EAT PART TIME WORKERS
The calculation of the amount of pension to which a retired part-time judge is entitled under the Part-time Workers Directive and the consequential domestic regulations should, as a . .
Appeal fromO’Brien v Ministry of Justice and Others CA 6-Oct-2015
The claimants each sought additional pensions, saying that discrimination laws which had come into effect (for part time workers and for sexual orientation) should be applied retrospectively.
Held: The decision was upheld. The ‘no . .
CitedIstituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) v Lotti, Matteucci (Social Policy) ECJ 10-Jun-2010
EU Directive 97/81/EC – Framework Agreement on part-time work – Equal treatment of part-time and full-time workers – Calculation of the period of service required to obtain a retirement pension – Periods not . .
CitedIstituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) v Bruno, Pettini (Social Policy) ECJ 10-Jun-2010
Europa Directive 97/81/EC – Framework Agreement on part-time work – Equal treatment of part-time and full-time workers – Calculation of the period of service required to obtain a retirement pension – Periods not . .
CitedCommission v Moravia Gas Storage ECJ 26-Mar-2015
Judgment – Appeals – Internal market in natural gas – Obligation of natural gas undertakings – Organisation of a system of negotiated third party access to gas storage facilities – Decision of the Czech authorities – Temporary exemption for future . .
CitedTen Oever v Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds voor het Glazenwassers- en Schoonmaakbedrijf (Judgment) ECJ 6-Oct-1993
Equal pay for men and women – Survivor’s pension – Limitation of the effect in time of the judgment in Case C-262/88 Barber.
As to Barber: ‘The Court’s ruling took account of the fact that it is a characteristic of this form of pay [scil, . .

Cited by:

Reference to ECJMiller and Others v Ministry of Justice SC 16-Dec-2019
‘The issue in this appeal is when time starts to run for a claim by a part-time judge to a pension under the Part-time Workers’ Directive (Directive 97/81) (‘PTWD’), as applied by the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.589261

Lodwick v London Borough of Southwark: EAT 7 Mar 2003

The applicant was employed by the respondent and sought leave to work for the CAB for a year, requesting a sabbatical. Leave was refused. He applied to the employment tribunal, but objected that the chairman had, in a previous case, indicated his strong dislike of the applicant. The chairman refused to recuse himself.
Held: The proposed appeal was not on a question of law, and the EAT did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. ‘The claim based on the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 and the Directive 97/81 EC seems to me to have been entirely misconceived. Those provisions were designed to protect part-time workers from being discriminated against when compared with full-time workers. They do not give a right to an employee who wants to go and work for somebody else to insist that his original employer continues to employ him part-time. ‘

Citations:

[2003] EAT 1285 – 02 – 0703, [2003] UKEAT 1285 – 02 – 0703

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Tribunals Act 1996 21(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed toLodwick v London Borough of Southwark CA 18-Mar-2004
The claimant alleged bias on the part of the employment appeal tribunal chairman hearing his appeal. The chairman refused to stand down, saying that he was only one of three tribunal members with an equal vote. The chairman had four year’s . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromLodwick v London Borough of Southwark CA 18-Mar-2004
The claimant alleged bias on the part of the employment appeal tribunal chairman hearing his appeal. The chairman refused to stand down, saying that he was only one of three tribunal members with an equal vote. The chairman had four year’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.189318

Rockfon A/S v Specialarbejderforbunde I Danmark Acting for Nielsen and Others: ECJ 17 Jan 1996

The term ‘establishment’ for the purpose of consultation on contemplated redundancies meant the work unit to which the relevant workers were assigned: ‘The term ‘establishment’ appearing in Article 1(1)(a) of Directive (75/129/EEC) must therefore be interpreted as designating, depending on the circumstances, the unit to which the workers made redundant are assigned to carry out their duties. It is not essential, in order for there to be an ‘establishment’, for the unit in question to be endowed with a management which can independently effect collective redundancies.
That interpretation is supported by the fact that the Commission’s initial proposal for a Directive uses the term ‘undertaking’ and that that term was defined in the last sub-paragraph of Article 1(1) of the proposal as ‘local employment unit’. It appears, however, that the Council decided to replace the term ‘undertaking’ by the term ‘establishment’, which meant that the definition originally contained in the proposal and considered to be superfluous was deleted.
The answer to the second part of the preliminary question must therefore be that the term ‘establishment’ appearing in Article 1(1)(a) . . must be understood as meaning, depending on the circumstances, the unit to which the workers made redundant are assigned to carry out their duties. It is not essential, in order for there to be an ‘establishment’ for the unit in question to be endowed with a management which can independently effect collective redundancies.’

Citations:

Times 17-Jan-1996, C-449/93, [1995] EUECJ C-449/93, [1996] IRLR 168, [1996] ICR 673, [1996] CEC 224, [1995] ECR I-4291

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 79/129/EEC L48/29

Cited by:

CitedMSF v Refuge Assurance Plc, United Friendly Insurance EAT 15-Feb-2002
EAT The EAT considered the employer’s duties to consult on making redundancies. The ET had found that company had satisfied the requirements. The Union argued that the duty to consult arose as soon as . .
CitedBrookes and 334 Others v Borough Care Services and CLS Care Services Ltd EAT 4-Aug-1998
Where a transfer of a business had been arranged by way of a transfer of shares rather than of the business and particularly in order to avoid the Regulations, the transfer of shares took effect as a transfer of the undertaking and so the . .
CitedAthinaiki Chartopoiia AE v L Panagiotidis and Others, third party: Geniki Sinomospondia Ergaton Elladas (GSEE) ECJ 15-Feb-2007
ECJ Free Movement of Persons – Collective redundancies – Council Directive 98/59/EC Article 1(1)(a) – Termination of the establishment’s activities of the employer’s own volition – Concept of ‘establishment’.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, European

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.88831

Rotsart de Hertaing v Benoidt and IGC Housing Service (In Liquidation) and Another: ECJ 14 Nov 1996

ECJ Safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses – Transfer to the transferee of the rights and obligations arising from a contract of employment – Date of transfer.

Citations:

Times 25-Nov-1996, [1997] IRLR 127, C-305/94, [1996] EUECJ C-305/94

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

EC Directive 77/187/EEC

Cited by:

CitedNorth Wales Training and Enterprise Council Ltd v Astley and others HL 21-Jun-2006
Civil servants had been transferred to a private company. At first they worked under secondment from the civil service. They asserted that they had protection under TUPE and the Acquired Rights Directive. The respondent said that there had only been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, European

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.88875

Rovenska v General Medical Council: EAT 22 Sep 1994

The complainant said that the respondent’s rules imposing language skills testing on doctors with recognised foreign qualifications were discriminatory.
Held: Discriminatory rules are a continuing act and the complaint was not barred by time limit. The complaint was not time-barred because it was: ‘about the maintenance and operation of a scheme for exemption which extends over a period, that period being the currency of the scheme or rules.’

Judges:

Mummery J

Citations:

Independent 22-Sep-1994, [1994] UKEAT 163 – 93 – 1103

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Appeal fromRovenska v General Medical Council CA 4-Dec-1996
A Czechoslovakian doctor complained against the General Medical Council under Section 12(1)(a) of the 1976 Act 1976 in respect of the most recent of a series of refusals, under its rules for the grant of limited registration as a medical . .
CitedCast v Croydon College CA 19-Mar-1998
Complaint was made within time limit when the decision complained of was a reconsideration of an earlier decision, not just a reference back to it.
Held: In a sex discrimination case, where there has been a constructive dismissal, time runs . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.88876

Regina v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry ex parte Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematographic and Theatre Union: ECJ 26 Jun 2001

The rule in United Kingdom law under which the entitlement to be paid annual leave arose only after an employee had been continuously employed for 13 weeks, did not satisfy European law. Members of the applicant trade union were typically employed on short term repeating contracts and did not receive paid annual holidays. The Directive sought to improve working conditions for employees. There were certain derogations, but not from Article 7, the particular applicable condition. The right was a social right directly conferred on each worker, and the UK regulations were incompatible with that right.

Citations:

Times 28-Jun-2001, C-173/99, [2001] EUECJ C-173/99

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Directive 93/104/EC concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, Working Time Regulations 1998 (1998 No 1833) 13(7)

Cited by:

CitedMunro v M P B Structures Ltd IHCS 1-Apr-2003
The respondent firm paid their staff holiday pay by adding a proportion to each wage packet. The employee complained that this was in breach of the regulations.
Held: The Regulations gave effect to the directive. The directive treated holiday . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, European

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.88660

Port of London Authority v Payne and Others: CA 3 Nov 1993

The practicality of re-instatement of an employee is to be decided on the evidence immediately before the tribunal.

Citations:

Times 25-Nov-1993, [1993] EWCA Civ 26, [1994] IRLR 9, [1994] ICR 555

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromPort of London Authority v Payne and Others EAT 7-May-1992
A decision as to the practicality of an order for re-engagement is to be made at time of the order. . .
Appeal fromPort of London Authority v Payne and others EAT 17-Dec-1992
. .
See AlsoPayne and others v Port of London Authority EAT 9-Jun-1993
. .

Cited by:

CitedMcBride v Scottish Police Authority (Scotland) SC 15-Jun-2016
The court was asked whether the employment tribunal had been correct, after finding that the appellant had been unfairly dismissed, to order her reinstatement. She had worked as a fingerprint officer, but her reinstatement was to be on terms that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84801

Port of London Authority v Payne and Others: EAT 7 May 1992

A decision as to the practicality of an order for re-engagement is to be made at time of the order.

Citations:

Gazette 02-Sep-1992, [1992] UKEAT 511 – 91 – 0705

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 58(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromPort of London Authority v Payne and Others CA 3-Nov-1993
The practicality of re-instatement of an employee is to be decided on the evidence immediately before the tribunal. . .
See AlsoPort of London Authority v Payne and others EAT 17-Dec-1992
. .
See AlsoPayne and others v Port of London Authority EAT 9-Jun-1993
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84802

Nottingham University v Fishel: QBD 19 Jan 2000

When a university embryologist, the respondent, worked abroad he did not act in any breach of fiduciary duty. He remained under a specific duty to direct his fellow embryologists to work in the interests of the university and not in his own financial interest. When receiving financial reward for work undertaken by other embryologists abroad, he was acting in breach of his fiduciary duty and was required to account for the profit he had made.
In the absence of an explicit term in his contract for this purpose, an employee has no duty to inform his employer of any employment taken by him outside that contract, even if it was in breach of that contract. The relation of trust and confidence between employer and employee did not make it a fiduciary relationship. An employee other than a senior employee is in a different position to a director, and an employee had no duty to pursue his employer’s interests at the expense of his own. Care must be taken not to equate the duty of good faith and loyalty owed by every employee with a fiduciary obligation. Unless that distinction is maintained common law rules of causation and remoteness of damages may be:- ‘miraculously sidestepped by intoning the magic formula (breach of fiduciary duty)’.
‘in determining whether a fiduciary relationship arises in the context of an employment relationship, it is necessary to identify with care the particular duties undertaken by the employee, and to ask whether in all the circumstances he has placed himself in a position where he must act solely in the interest of his employer. It is only once those duties have been identified that it is possible to determine whether any fiduciary duty has been breached.’

Judges:

Elias J

Citations:

Times 31-Mar-2000, [2000] EWHC 221 (QB), [2000] Ed CR 505, [2001] RPC 22, [2000] ICR 1462, [2000] IRLR 471, [2000] ELR 385

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSG and R Valuation Service Co v Boudrais and others QBD 12-May-2008
The claimant sought to require the defendants not to work during their notice period to achieve the equivalent of garden leave despite there being no provision for garden leave in the contracts. It was said that the defendants had conspired together . .
CitedHelmet Integrated Systems Ltd v Tunnard and others CA 15-Dec-2006
Whilst employed by the claimants as a salesman, the defendant came to want to develop his idea for a modular helmet suitable for fire-fighters and others. He took certain steps including showing the proposal confidentially to a competitor, and then . .
CitedRanson v Customer Systems Plc CA 27-Jun-2012
Lewison LJ considered the contractual duty of fidelity within an employment contract:
‘It is not disputed that an employee has an obligation of fidelity towards his employer. If the obligation is not expressed, it will invariably be implied.
CitedWhitmar Publications Ltd v Gamage and Others ChD 4-Jul-2013
Whitmar claimed damages for breach of contract; an account of profits; damages for breach of fiduciary duty and/or for infringement of its Database Rights under the Copyright and Rights in Database Regulations 1997; and for a permanent injunction . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84377

O’Neill v Governors of St Thomas More Roman Catholic Voluntary Aided Upper School: EAT 7 Jun 1996

The dismissal by a Roman Catholic school of a teacher who was pregnant by a priest, was on the grounds of pregnancy, and for an inadmissible reason. The pregnancy was an effective cause of the adverse treatment of the Appellant by her employer.

Judges:

Mummery P

Citations:

Gazette 12-Sep-1996, Times 07-Jun-1996, [1996] IRLR 372, [1996] UKEAT 1180 – 94 – 304, [1997] ICR 33

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Sex Discrimination Act 1975

Citing:

See AlsoO’Neill v Governors of St Thomas More RC School EAT 12-Oct-1995
The claimant had lodged an appeal against a rejection of her claim of sex discrimination, and against the amount of damages awarded on the success of her claim of unfair dismissal. After rejection of her request for a review, her counsel had lodged . .

Cited by:

AppliedMartin v Goldsobel EAT 6-Sep-2001
The employee had been dismissed. She alleged that it was because of her pregnancy, and was automatically unfair. The employers, a firm of solicitors, alleged that it related to her standards of work.
Held: To establish sex discrimination a . .
CitedMurphy v Sheffield Hallam University EAT 11-Jan-2000
The claimant challenged refusal of his claim of discrimination. He was profoundly deaf. He applied for work, and indicated his disability, but no provision was made for a signer to appear at the interview. The interview was re-arranged, but he . .
CitedA C Redfearn v Serco Ltd T/A West Yorkshire Transport Service EAT 27-Jul-2005
The claimant said that he had been indirectly discriminated against on racial grounds. He was dismissed after being elected as a local councillor for the BNP. The employer considered that for Health and Safety reasons, his dismissal was necessary . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84460

Mobbs v Nuclear Electric Ltd: EAT 8 Aug 1996

An IT Chair should not sit alone at preliminary hearing if evidence is to be given.

Citations:

Times 08-Aug-1996, [1996] UKEAT 1182 – 95 – 0506, [1996] IRLR 536

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

DisapprovedTsangacos v Amalgamated Chemicals Ltd and Another EAT 6-Nov-1996
The Chairman of a tribunal may always hear questions as to matters of jurisdiction alone. . .
DistinguishedSarker v South Tees Acute Hospitals NHS Trust EAT 25-Mar-1997
CS The appellant applied for a job with the respondent. Her offer was confirmed in writing. When the offer was withdrawn before she began to work, she claimed damages under s131.
Held: The employment . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.83777

Morse v Wiltshire County Council: EAT 1 May 1998

A tribunal considering a claim of disability discrimination should best consider the various statutory elements in the order given in the Act, so as to avoid confusion in unraveling what is a complex statutory structure. The wide language of section 6(2) and 6(3) is capable of applying to a ‘dismissal situation’. Although section 6 makes no express mention of dismissal, termination of service or redundancy, the Code of Practice assumes that section applies to a dismissal in the circumstances of the applicant in that case. ‘Arrangements on which employment . . is offered or afforded’ include alternatives to dismissal, such as are mentioned in section 6(3)-allocation of the disabled person’s duties to another person, assigning him to a different place of work or transferring him to fill an existing vacancy.

Judges:

Bell J

Citations:

Times 11-May-1998, [1998] UKEAT 1279 – 97 – 0105, [1998] ICR 1023

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995 5 6

Cited by:

CitedClark v TDG Limited (Trading As Novacold) CA 25-Mar-1999
The applicant had soft tissue injuries around the spine as a consequence of a back injury at work. He was absent from work for a long time as a result of his injuries, and he was eventually dismissed when his medical advisers could provide no clear . .
CitedRothwell v Pelikan Hardcopy Scotland Ltd EAT 23-Sep-2005
EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
Reasonable adjustments
UNFAIR DISMISSAL
Procedural fairness
The claimant, who suffered from Parkinson’s Disease, claimed that he had been unfairly dismissed and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.83862

Nerva and Others v R L and G (T/a Paradiso E Inferno and Trota Blu Wine Bar): CACD 15 May 1996

A waiter’s tips which were received, and then re-distributed by the employer, are part of the employees’ wages for minimum wage purposes. The gratuities became the employer’s property so that when they paid the waiters their share of them, they were doing so with their (the employer’s) own money and such payments therefore counted towards the remuneration they paid.

Citations:

Times 28-May-1996, Gazette 19-Jun-1996, [1996] EWCA Crim 449, [2002] IRLR 815, [1997] ICR 11

Statutes:

Wages Council Act 1979, Wages Act 1986 16(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal FromNerva And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 24-Sep-2002
The claimants were waiters. Tips paid were included in credit card payments to their employers, who then paid them out in ‘additional pay’. The waiters claimed that this was then included within the wage, and used to calculate their minimum pay. . .
CitedAnnabel’s (Berkeley Square) Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs CA 7-May-2009
The court considered whether tips paid at a restaurant by means of a credit card or cheque thus becoming the employer’s money could properly count toward the minimum wage when paid on to the employee. The revenue contended that the money received . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Crime

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84250

Kwik-Fit (GB) Ltd v Lineham: EAT 5 Feb 1992

The applicant claimed unfair dismissal. The employer replied that the employee had resigned.
Held: The employer’s appeal was dismissed. The resignation had taken place in a heated moment, and it was not conclusive. An employer may not be able to rely upon a resignation made by an employee which had obviously been made in the heat of the moment. Constructive dismissal might still be a possibility. However (Wood J) ‘As we have said the industrial members take the view that the way in which this industrial tribunal have expressed themselves puts too high a burden upon employers. If words of resignation are unambiguous then prima facie an employer is entitled to treat them as such, but in the field of employment personalities constitute an important consideration. Words may be spoken or actions expressed in temper or in the heat of the moment or under extreme pressure (‘being jostled into a decision’) and indeed the intellectual make-up of an employee may be relevant: (and he gives a citation). These we refer to as `special circumstances’. Where `special circumstances’ arise it may be unreasonable for an employer to assume a resignation and to accept it forthwith. A reasonable period of time should be allowed to lapse and if circumstances arise during that period which put the employer on notice that that further inquiry is desirable to see whether the resignation was really intended and can properly be assumed, then such inquiry is ignored at the employer’s risk. He runs the risk that ultimately evidence may be forthcoming which indicates that in the `special circumstances’ the intention to resign was not the correct interpretation when the facts are judged objectively’.

Judges:

Wood J

Citations:

Gazette 05-Feb-1992, [1991] UKEAT 250 – 91 – 2410, [1992] ICR 183, [1992] IRLR 156

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

CitedChesham Shipping Ltd v Rowe 1977
. .
CitedSothern v Frank Charlesly and Co CA 1981
Where an employee gives an unequivocal and unambiguous notice of his resignation, then that can be accepted by an employer and there is no dismissal. Where the unambiguous words are said in a moment of anger or in the heat of the moment or where . .
CitedJ and J Stern v Simpson 1983
Unambiguous words of an employee resigning should be accepted as such. . .
CitedMartin v Yeoman Aggregates Ltd EAT 1983
A director of the employer had engaged in an argument with the employee claimant, which resulted in the director telling the employee he was dismissed. Within five minutes, the director cooled down and retracted the dismissal. The employee insisted . .
CitedSovereign House Security Services Ltd v Savage CA 1989
S was employed as a Security Officer. After discovering a cash shortage, his superior, P, rang him and suspended him forthwith pending police investigations. S responded by saying ‘I am not having any of that, you can stuff it, I am not taking the . .
CitedWestern Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp CA 1978
To succeed in a claim for constructive dismissal the plaintiff must establish a breach of contract by the defendant, that the breach was sufficiently serious to have justified the claimant resigning, or at least be the last in a series of events . .
CitedTanner v D T Kean Ltd EAT 1978
The court was asked whether the words used by the claimant were an unambiguous statemet of an intent to resign. . .
CitedBarclay v Glasgow District Council 1983
B who was mentally disabled, worked cleaning up swing-parks. There was an altercation with the District Manager and the Foreman which ended by Mr Barclay saying that he wanted his books ‘the next day.’ The next day was a pay day and the manager gave . .
CitedLondon Transport Executive v Clarke CA 1981
The employee had taken unauthorised leave to go to Jamaica. After sending two letters to his home address asking for an explanation and giving an ultimatum, the employers wrote on 26 March saying that his name had been permanently removed from their . .
CitedGale Ltd v Gilbert EAT 1978
The claimant had worked for the employer for many years. There was a disagreement, and the employee said ‘I am leaving, I want my cards’. He claimed unfair dismissal.
Held: The EAT upheld the employer’s appeal against a finding of unfair . .

Cited by:

CitedGrainger v Pat Kirk Limited NIIT 7-Apr-2005
. .
CitedGrainger v Pat Kirk Limited FENI 7-Apr-2005
. .
CitedRoberts v Messrs F J and J Frost EAT 6-Oct-1993
. .
CitedSquires v Hill Brothers (Chichester) Ltd EAT 23-Jan-1995
. .
CitedLeeds Private Hospital Ltd v Sayles EAT 25-Jul-1995
. .
CitedRugby Travel Specialists Ltd v Spender EAT 16-Jul-1997
. .
CitedTheodosopoulou v Bank of Cyprus (London) Ltd EAT 15-Jul-1999
. .
CitedWalker v Heathrow Refuelling Services Company Ltd and others EAT 6-Oct-2004
. .
CitedLiverpool Community College v Bogart EAT 5-Jul-2006
EAT Unfair dismissal – dismissal/ambiguous resignation
ET was required to decide a preliminary issue whether the Respondent agreed that the Claimant could withdraw his notice. In a majority judgment, they . .
CitedAli v Birmingham City Council EAT 27-Oct-2008
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.
CitedWilloughby v C F Capital Plc EAT 13-Jul-2010
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Dismissal/ambiguous resignation
Whether employee was dismissed – unambiguous words of dismissal used by employer – Tribunal erred in law in holding that by reason of ‘special . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.82875

Harris v Lord Shuttleworth and Others (Trustee of National and Provincial Building Society Pension Fund): CA 26 Nov 1993

The employee was dismissed on notice. The employee applied to the trustees to be recognised as entitled to an immediate pension as having been permanently incapacitated, but her application was turned down, both on the ground that she could obtain other employment and also on the ground that dismissal was different from retirement.
Held: Dismissal for prolonged illness may be early retirement for pension purposes. ‘Unaffected by authority, I would conclude that if an employee before reaching normal pension age is incapacitated from following her employment by a physical or mental disability or ill health which renders it improbable that she will be able to follow her present or similar employment during any part of the period until she reaches normal pension age, and if as a result her employment with the Society comes to an end, it matters not how her employment is terminated. In my judgment, whether she gives notice of her intention to leave or the Society gives notice dismissing her, the termination can still properly be described as ‘retirement from the Service by reason of incapacity’.

Judges:

Glidewell LJ

Citations:

Independent 26-Nov-1993, (1994) PLR 47, [1993] EWCA Civ 29, [1994] IRLR 547, [1994] ICR 991, [1994] Pens LR 47

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedAGCO Limited v Massey Ferguson Works Pension Trust Limited, Bradbury, Chater CA 17-Jul-2003
An employee sought payment under his pension scheme on taking redundancy at the employer’s request. The scheme did not make explicit provision for payment in such circumstances.
Held: The court had to begin with the words used. The kernel of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81255

Hilton International Hotels (UK) Ltd v Faraji: EAT 10 Jan 1994

No reduction in compensation for unfair dismissal was to be made for invalidity benefit.

Citations:

Times 10-Jan-1994, [1993] UKEAT 136 – 93 – 1511

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

CitedPuglia v C James and Sons EAT 24-Oct-1995
The EAT considered the effect of the receipt of benefits during a period of sickness when calculating loss of earnings, and whether a hearing was properly conducted without the presence of the parties.
Held: There is no procedural irregularity . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81385

Halfpenny v IGE Medical Systems Ltd: HL 19 Dec 2000

A woman who had taken maternity leave was deemed to have returned to work following the completion of that leave when, on the appropriate date she provided medical certificates in accordance with the contract of employment. The applicant had given notice of her intention to return after maternity leave, but obtained an extension of four weeks. She requested a further extension, but this was refused by her employers. She did not attend.
Held: The right to return could not be dependent on the simple ability to return on the day notified. Nor could the simple service of a notice under the section create a return to work. In this case, however, the employee had demonstrated her intention to comply with the requirements of the contract of employment, and that was sufficient to constitute a return to work under the Act even though she did not physically attend on the notified day.

Judges:

Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Goff of Chieveley Lord Browne-Wilkinson Lord Clyde

Citations:

Times 19-Dec-2000, [2000] UKHL 64

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Sex Discrimination Act 1975, Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromHalfpenny v IGE Medical Systems Ltd CA 18-Dec-1998
Where an employee had taken extended maternity leave but was then unable to return for post-natal depression, but she was dismissed, the resumption of her contract on issuing her notice of intention to return revived her sickness rights anew.
CitedKwik Save Stores Limited v Greaves; Crees v Royal London Mutual Insurance Society Limited CA 20-Jan-1998
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 . .
CitedKelly v Liverpool Maritime Terminals Limited CA 1988
An employee had no valid claim for unfair dismissal if illness prevented her from returning to work before the end of the twenty-nine week period after her confinement, allowing for only one statutory extension of 4 weeks. The applicant’s maternity . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81144

Goodwin v Patent Office: EAT 21 Oct 1998

An ability to carry out normal domestic day to day tasks did not mean that a physical impairment was not substantial. The word ‘substantial’ is potentially ambiguous. In that it might mean ‘very large’ or ‘more than minor or trivial’. The code of guidance resolves this ambiguity in favour of the latter alternative. The employment tribunal would: ‘wish to examine how the applicants abilities had actually been affected at the material time, whilst on medication, and then to address their minds the difficult question as to the effects which they think there would have been but for the medication: the deduced effects. The question is then whether the actual and deduced effects on the applicants ability to carry out normal day to day activities [are] clearly the more than trivial.’
The tribunal should consider four conditions: ‘(1) The impairment condition. Does the applicant have an impairment which is either mental or physical?
(2) The adverse effect condition. Does the impairment affect the applicant’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities in one of the respects set out in paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 1 to the Act, and does it have an adverse effect?
(3) The substantial condition. Is the adverse effect (upon the applicant’s ability) substantial?
(4) The long-term condition. Is the adverse effect (upon the applicant’s ability) long-term?’ He continued: ‘Frequently, there will be a complete overlap between conditions (3) and (4) but it will be as well to bear all four of them in mind. Tribunals may find it helpful to address each of the questions but at the same time be aware of the risk that disaggregation should not take one’s eye off the whole picture.’

Judges:

Morison J

Citations:

Times 11-Nov-1998, [1998] UKEAT 57 – 98 – 2110, [1999] ICR 302, [1999] IRLR 4

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995

Citing:

See alsoGoodwin v Patent Office EAT 3-Feb-1999
Tribunals looking at Disability Discrimination should check the four factors in the Act without losing the overall picture. Assistance was available from the WHO Classification of Diseases. Being able to carry out a task did not mean ability was not . .

Cited by:

See alsoGoodwin v Patent Office EAT 3-Feb-1999
Tribunals looking at Disability Discrimination should check the four factors in the Act without losing the overall picture. Assistance was available from the WHO Classification of Diseases. Being able to carry out a task did not mean ability was not . .
CitedConoco Ltd v Kevan Booth EAT 30-Jan-2001
EAT The employer appealed against a finding of unfair dsmissal and unlawful disability discrimination. He claimant suffered post traumatic stress after a fire at the appellant’s premises, and the employer was . .
CitedJ v DLA Piper UK Llp EAT 15-Jun-2010
EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Disability
Job offer to Claimant withdrawn allegedly as a result of her disclosing a history of depression – On a preliminary issue Tribunal holds that at the material time . .
CitedEast Sussex County Council v Hancock EAT 5-Nov-2003
EAT The Council appealed against a finding that the respondent, their employee, was disabled under the 1995 Act. He suffered from a long term mixed anxiety and depression disorder, but the Council disputed that . .
CitedKapadia v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 27-May-1999
The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for disability discrimination which had been on the ground that his condition did not amount to a disability within section 1(1). He suffered from anxiety, stress, tension and depression.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80923

Edmonds v Lawson: QBD 13 Oct 1999

A pupil barrister was engaged in a form of apprenticeship, which had sufficient characteristics of employment to make the pupil a worker within the Act, and so entitled to payment of the minimum wage. The contract was either of employment or for personal services and so was covered.

Citations:

Times 11-Oct-1999, Gazette 13-Oct-1999

Statutes:

National Minimum Wage Act 1998 1 (2) (a), 58

Cited by:

Appeal FromEdmonds v Lawson, Pardoe, and Del Fabbro CA 10-Mar-2000
A contract of apprenticeship is synallagmatic. The master undertakes to educate and train the apprentice (or pupil) in the practical and other skills needed to practise a skilled trade (or learned profession) and the apprentice (or pupil) binds . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Employment

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80252

Doyle and Others v Northumbria Probation Committee: QBD 19 Feb 1992

The right to seek a private law remedy after withdrawal of the right to claim some expenses on financial grounds was not lost despite there also being a public remedy because of public law elements in the decision. The matter was essentially one of contract between the parties.

Citations:

Gazette 19-Feb-1992

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80113

Digital Equipment Co Ltd v Clements: EAT 11 Dec 1996

An excess redundancy payment is to be deducted from damages before any per cent pro rata redeuction is to be made for any other reason. An employer paying over statutory minimum on redundancy is entitled to full credit for extra payment of had dismissed unfairly.

Citations:

Times 11-Dec-1996, [1996] UKEAT 593 – 95 – 0512

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 74

Cited by:

Appeal fromDigital Equipment Co Ltd v Clements (No 2) CA 4-Dec-1997
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79961

Diocese of Southwark and Others v Coker: EAT 4 Apr 1996

A curate is not an employee of the Church and cannot claim unfair dismissal.

Judges:

Hull QC

Citations:

[1995] UKEAT 374 – 95 – 0811

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978

Citing:

Appeal fromCoker v Diocese of Southwark ET 16-Mar-1995
An Anglican clergyman is an employee of the church, and so has employment rights. . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromReverend 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79972

D v M: QBD 18 Mar 1996

A post employment restrictive covenant was unreasonable where an employee was restricted even after the wrongful termination of his employment by the company. Laws J set out the appropriate principle: ‘A restrictive covenant, having effect after the termination of a contract of service or for services, which on its face applies to the employer’s benefit even where the termination has been induced by his own breach is necessarily unreasonable. Such a provision, if given effect, would constitute an evasion of the rule in General Billposting [1909] AC 118. Indeed, so far as I can see, the only purpose of inserting the material words (‘for whatever reason’ or ‘whether lawful or unlawful’ or however otherwise it might be expressed) would be to secure coercive rights to the employer which would survive his own contractual misconduct. I cannot think that that would be reasonable.’

Judges:

Laws J

Citations:

Times 18-Mar-1996, [1996] IRLR 192

Cited by:

CitedRock Refrigeration Limited v Jones and Seward Refrigeration Limited CA 10-Oct-1996
The claimant sought to enforce a post employment restrictive covenant given by the defendant. The defendant replied that the clause was too widely framed and was unreasonable since it applied to a temination of his contract ‘howsoever occasioned’. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79764

Davidson v City Electrical Factors Ltd: EAT 13 May 1998

All cases of unfair dismissal on claim where employment between one and two years may be adjourned pending outcome of appeal to House of Lords in ‘Seymour-Smith’ case, but applicants with a qualifying period of employment of less than one year should not have applications stayed.

Citations:

Gazette 13-May-1998, [1998] IRLR 108

Employment

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79828

Criminal Proceedings Against Arblade and Others Joined Cases C-369/96 and C-376/96: ECJ 7 Dec 1999

Where a member state had a minimum wage law, it was not contrary to the rules requiring the free movement of services, to require that a supplier from another state providing services within the state should do so subject to the minimum wage rules of the state in which the service is provided, and to criminalize breaches of such rules. There was no freedom to insist on payment of employers social funds contributions in both states.

Citations:

Times 07-Dec-1999

Statutes:

ECTreaty Article 234

Employment, European

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79653

Cornwall County Care Ltd v Brightman and Others: EAT 10 Mar 1998

A dismissal after the transfer of an undertaking was not unfair when at the same time the old terms of employment remained in effect. Compensation would be awarded for the dismissal and the new terms would be applied to the new contract.

Citations:

Times 10-Mar-1998

Statutes:

Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (1981 No 1794)

Employment

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79512

Clean Car Autoservice Gesmbh v Landeshauptmann Von Wien: ECJ 13 May 1998

An employer can make use of EU legislation allowing free movement of workers as much as can individual employees. Member state requiring an own national head of company was invalid.

Citations:

Times 13-May-1998, C-350/96, [1998] EUECJ C-350/96

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

ECTreaty Art 48

Employment, European

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79211

Clapson v British Airways Plc: EAT 12 Jan 2001

The employment tribunal power to require attendance by a witness includes the power to require a party to attend to give evidence. The consent of either party was not needed for its exercise.

Citations:

Times 21-Feb-2001, [2001] UKEAT 1266 – 00 – 1201

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 1996 (1996 No 1757) Sch 1 Para 4(2)

Employment

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79174

Cerberus Software Ltd v Rowley: EAT 29 Sep 1999

Where an employment contract allows the employer to dismiss without notice by the payment of salary in lieu of notice, the employer was bound by that contract and could not rely upon the employee’s duty of mitigation of damages and dismiss without both notice and a payment in lieu of notice.

Citations:

Gazette 10-Nov-1999, (1999) IRLR 690, [1999] UKEAT 1023 – 98 – 2909

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See AlsoCerberus Software Ltd v Rowley EAT 17-Nov-1998
. .
See AlsoCerberus Software Ltd v J A Rowley EAT 14-Jul-1999
EAT Contract of Employment – Breach of Contract . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromCerberus Software Ltd v John Anthony Rowley CA 18-Jan-2001
Where a contract of employment gave the employee a right to six months notice but provided that the employer might pay salary in lieu, and the employee was wrongfully dismissed instantly, but found work within weeks, he was entitled to his full six . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78959

Chief Adjudication Officer v Stafford and Banks: HL 29 Jun 2001

The appellant first applied for income support and then for job seeker’s allowance in respect of periods between terms. He was employed as a classroom assistant in a school, and was not paid outside term. He sought but could not obtain work. He was denied benefits. He claimed that when averaged over the year including holidays.
Held: With some reluctance, since the school year imposed a recognisable cycle, the rules which required holiday periods to be disallowed when calculating the average must be applied, which defeated his claim for benefits.

Citations:

Times 29-Jun-2001, Gazette 09-Aug-2001, [2001] UKHL 33, [2001] 1 WLR 1411

Links:

Bailii, House of Lords

Statutes:

Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 (1987 No 1967) 5(3B), Jobseekers Allowance Regulations 1996 (1996 No 207) 51(2)(c)

Citing:

Appeal fromChief Adjudication Officer v Stafford; Same v Banks CA 27-Oct-1999
The provisions for requiring the averaging of pay over entire cycles of work were applied to ensure that workers who worked part time for educational establishments and who were not paid when the schools were closed, were not able to receive . .

Cited by:

Appealed toChief Adjudication Officer v Stafford; Same v Banks CA 27-Oct-1999
The provisions for requiring the averaging of pay over entire cycles of work were applied to ensure that workers who worked part time for educational establishments and who were not paid when the schools were closed, were not able to receive . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Benefits

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79047

Carrington v Harwich Duck Co Ltd: EAT 31 Aug 1998

An employee resigned for his own financial purposes and was re-employed after the weekend. Later dismissed, his employment was said to be continuous.
Held: It was difficult to contract out of statutory rights when it came to an issue of jurisdiction. Intermediate employment not enough.

Citations:

Times 31-Aug-1998

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 212

Employment

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78916

Camelot Group Plc v Centaur Communications Plc: QBD 15 Jul 1997

Human rights law is no aid in protecting a journalist against an order requiring the return of confidential documents, even though this might identify the source of leak.

Citations:

Times 15-Jul-1997, [1999] QB 124

Statutes:

Contempt of Court Act 1981

Cited by:

CitedFinancial Times Ltd and others v Interbrew SA CA 8-Mar-2002
The appellants appealed against orders for delivery up of papers belonging to the claimant. The paper was a market sensitive report which had been stolen and doctored before being handed to the appellant.
Held: The Ashworth Hospital case . .
Appeal fromCamelot Group plc v Centaur Communications Limited CA 23-Oct-1997
An order for a journalist to disclose the name of an employee disclosing his employer’s information, may be made where there was a need to identify a disloyal employee. Here drafts of accounts had been released to embarrass the company. The . .
CitedMersey Care NHS Trust v Ackroyd QBD 7-Feb-2006
The trust, operators of Ashworth Secure Hospital sought from the defendant journalist disclosure of the name of their employee who had revealed to the defendant matters about the holding of Ian Brady, the Moors Murderer, and in particular medical . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Employment, Media

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78858

Burton and Another v De Vere Hotels: EAT 3 Oct 1996

Two black waitresses, clearing tables in the banqueting hall of a hotel, were made the butt of racist and sexist jibes by a guest speaker entertaining the assembled all-male company at a private dinner party.
Held: The employer of the waitresses had racially discriminated against the waitresses. Had the assistant managers in charge for the evening been properly instructed, the two young women would not have suffered embarrassment. They could, and should, have been withdrawn from the room. An hotel is liable, as an employer to its employees who had been offended by racially charged or offensive material uttered by a guest speaker by a guests’ guest speaker. The employer could have taken steps to intervene, but did not do so.

Judges:

Smith J, R Chapman, Lord Gladwin

Citations:

Times 03-Oct-1996, [1997] ICR 1, [1996] IRLR 596, Independent 04-Nov-1996

Statutes:

Race Relations Act 1976 4

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedChief Constable of Bedfordshire Police v Liversidge EAT 21-Sep-2001
The Chief Constable appealed against a refusal to strike out a claim by the respondent that he had racially discriminated against her. Force members had used code words for racially abusive terms about her. The claim was that he was vicariously . .
OverruledMacDonald v Advocate General for Scotland (Scotland); Pearce v Governing Body of Mayfield School HL 19-Jun-2003
Three appeals raised issues about the way in which sex discrimination laws were to be applied for cases involving sexual orientation.
Held: The court should start by asking what gave rise to the act complained of. In this case it was the . .
DoubtedS S Hussain v HM Prison Service EAT 1-Mar-2002
EAT Race Discrimination – Direct . .
CitedChief Constable of Kent County Constabulary v Baskerville CA 3-Sep-2003
The claimant sought damages for sex discrimination by fellow police officers in an action against the Chief Constable. The Chief Constable said he was liable for the unlawful acts of fellow officers.
Held: Anything done by an employee was done . .
CitedConteh v Parking Partners Ltd EAT 17-Dec-2010
EAT HARASSMENT – Conduct
Where an employee worked in an environment in which her dignity was violated, or which became intimidatory, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive as a result of actions of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78768

British Telecommunications Plc v Williams: EAT 3 Jun 1997

Sexual harassment was defined as ‘unwanted conduct of a sexual nature, or other conduct based upon sex affecting dignity at work’. It would be no defence to a complaint of sexual harassment that a person of the opposite sex would have been similarly treated. In general in cases of sexual harassment there is no necessity to look for a comparison with a particular person of the opposite sex.

Judges:

Morison J

Citations:

Gazette 14-Jan-1998, [1997] IRLR 668, [1997] UKEAT 1340 – 95 – 0306

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

DisapprovedMacDonald v Advocate General for Scotland (Scotland); Pearce v Governing Body of Mayfield School HL 19-Jun-2003
Three appeals raised issues about the way in which sex discrimination laws were to be applied for cases involving sexual orientation.
Held: The court should start by asking what gave rise to the act complained of. In this case it was the . .
CitedPearce v Mayfield School CA 31-Jul-2001
The claimant teacher was a lesbian. She complained that her school in failed to protect her against abuse from pupils for her lesbianism. She appealed against a decision that the acts of the pupils did not amount to discrimination, and that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78649

British Broadcasting Corporation v Farnworth: EAT 13 Jul 1998

The claimant employee said that the non-renewal of her fixed term contract was not a redundancy as alleged.
Held: It could still be a redundancy situation when an employee is dismissed because the organisation requires an employee with more experience. The non renewal of a fixed term contract for a producer became a redundancy when she was needed to be replaced by someone with more experience.

Judges:

Levy QC J

Citations:

Times 07-Oct-1998, Gazette 28-Oct-1998, [1998] UKEAT 1000 – 97 – 1307

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

CitedSafeway Stores Plc v Burrell EAT 24-Jan-1997
The tribunal set out the test for whether a dismissal was for redundancy: ‘Free of authority, we understand the statutory framework . . involve a three-stage process: (1) was the employee dismissed: If so, (2) had the requirements of the employer’s . .
CitedVaux and Associated Breweries Ltd v Ward 1968
Definition of the phrase ‘work of a particular kind’. . .
CitedKleboe v Ayr County Council 1971
Meaning of ‘work of a particular kind’ in the context of redundancy. . .
CitedMurphy v Epsom College CA 1984
The College replaced a plumber who could do the work of a heating engineer with a heating engineer who could do plumbing work. The number of employees and the work remained the same.
Held: The dismissal was by reason of redundancy because the . .
CitedPillinger v Manchester Area Health Authority 1979
The claimanat said his dismissal had not been a redundancy, since the person who replaced him did the same work.
Held: The dismissal must have been for some other reason. It was not a redundancy. The court discussed the meaning of the phrase . .
CitedLoudon v Crimpy Crisps Ltd 1966
In order to test whether there has been a redundancy the statute asks as to the requirements of the business for employees to do work of a particular kind. The personal attributes of the employee are not relevant except in so far as they reflect . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78608

British Coal Corporation v Smith and Others: HL 23 May 1996

The phrase ‘common terms of employment’ means broadly comparable terms. There is no need for them to be identical, and the phrase should be construed liberally, though there can be no general commonality where there is no commonality in terms and conditions between comparative establishments.
Lord Slynn said that the terms had to be sufficiently similar to allow a fair comparison to be made: ‘generally’ does not necessarily mean ‘all’.
A genuine material factor defence, between different collective bargaining pay structures for claimant and comparator work groups, can become discriminatory: ‘Whilst accepting that differences in rates of pay historically were due to separate bargaining processes, which themselves were untainted by sex, the question remained whether at the relevant date (January 1986) the difference between workers had been shown by the Corporation to be objectively justified on grounds other than sex.’

Judges:

Lord Slynn

Citations:

Times 23-May-1996, Gazette 12-Sep-1996, Gazette 03-Jul-1996, [1996] ICR 515

Statutes:

Equal Pay Act 1970 1(6), Employment Protection Act 1970 1(2)(c)

Citing:

CitedLeverton v Clwyd County Council HL 1989
The claimant, employed as a nursery nurse by the respondent in an infant school sought to compare herself with clerical staff employed by the respondent, but not in schools.
Held: The employee’s appeal succeeded. The majority of the Employment . .

Cited by:

CitedWhite v Burton’s Foods Ltd EAT 6-Jul-2010
EAT EQUAL PAY ACT – Like work
The Claimant had been employed by the Respondent since 1984 before becoming Production Planning Manager at the Respondent’s Blackpool site. She brought a claim under the Equal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78619

British Coal Corporation v Smith and Others: EAT 23 Feb 1993

An application of equal pay involved consideration of 150 comparators, and at great cost to all involved. The industrial members of the tribunal, with the support of the legal member, criticised the delay and complexity of Employment law. The growing complexity of industrial law was operating against the interests of those seeking to work within it in industry.

Citations:

Times 23-Feb-1993

Statutes:

Equal Pay Act 1970 208, Sex Discrimination Act 1975, Equal Pay (Amendment) Regulations 1983 (1983 No 1794)

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78623

British Sugar Plc v Kirker: EAT 3 Feb 1999

The Tribunal was not wrong to find disability discrimination where an employee was selected for redundancy drawing inferences from events which had occurred before the Act came into force. No need in this law for comparison with treatment of comparitors.

Citations:

Gazette 03-Feb-1999, [1998] IRLR 624

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78635

Brookes and 334 Others v Borough Care Services and CLS Care Services Ltd: EAT 4 Aug 1998

Where a transfer of a business had been arranged by way of a transfer of shares rather than of the business and particularly in order to avoid the Regulations, the transfer of shares took effect as a transfer of the undertaking and so the regulations caught the transaction, even though the Directive made no mention of such a transfer.

Citations:

Gazette 10-Dec-1998, [1998] IRLR 636, [1998] UKEAT 210 – 98 – 0408, [1998] ICR 1198

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (1981 No 1794)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRockfon A/S v Specialarbejderforbunde I Danmark Acting for Nielsen and Others ECJ 17-Jan-1996
The term ‘establishment’ for the purpose of consultation on contemplated redundancies meant the work unit to which the relevant workers were assigned: ‘The term ‘establishment’ appearing in Article 1(1)(a) of Directive (75/129/EEC) must therefore be . .

Cited by:

CitedAstle and others v Cheshire County Council and Omnisure Property Management Ltd EAT 20-May-2004
EAT Issue whether Employment Tribunal asked itself the right question and/or was perverse in failing to find that the principal reason for the Council’s changed arrangements was to thwart TUPE and hence that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, European

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78672

Blackstone Franks Investment Management Ltd v Robertson: EAT 12 Nov 1996

Deductions from unpaid commissions are deductions from wages for Act.

Citations:

Times 12-Nov-1996

Statutes:

Wages Act 1986 7(1)

Citing:

Appealed toRobertson v Blackstone Franks Investment Management Limited CA 7-Apr-1998
A self-employed worker was entitled to claim for commission payments due as wages due to a worker, but the employer was entitled to make allowance for advance payments he had made. . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromRobertson v Blackstone Franks Investment Management Limited CA 7-Apr-1998
A self-employed worker was entitled to claim for commission payments due as wages due to a worker, but the employer was entitled to make allowance for advance payments he had made. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78439

Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council v Malrod Insulations Ltd: QBD 6 Jan 1993

The company had contracted to remove asbestos. Before work was to start, the inspector found defective equipment. The prosecutor appealed the acquittal on appeal to the Crown Court.
Held: An employer’s duty of care extends to all employees, and not just those working on a particular plant and even when the plant was not in use. The duty under s2 applied to all employees ‘at work’ and was not restricted to those intended to use the plant in question. The duty to provide safe equipment applied even though it had not been used.

Citations:

Times 04-Aug-1994, Gazette 06-Jan-1993, [1993] ICR 358, (1993) 137 SJLB 13, [1993] IRLR 274, [1993] COD 391

Statutes:

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 2(1) 2(a)

Employment, Health and Safety

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78474

Berkshire 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 duties was in assisting the JC, they came within the definition in regulation 3(1)(b).
Held: The case was remitted to the Tribunal. The Tribunal had misdirected itself in holding that, for the purposes of the regulation, assisting the JC need be no more than an ‘appreciable’ part of the employment. More was required. Provided a person’s duties at work were predominantly devoted to providing assistance to the holder of the office of justices’ clerk, that person would be entitled to compensation upon termination of office under the Regulations.
Carnwath J explained the meaing of regulation 3: ‘Is it sufficient that assisting the justices’ clerk should be ‘an appreciable (as opposed to insignificant or negligible’) feature of the employment, as the tribunal concluded? Or is Mr Lynch right in submitting that the employment must be wholly or predominately devoted to providing such assistance? . . In my view Mr Lynch is correct on this issue. The words of regulation 3(1) itself are ambiguous. I accept that a person, only part of whose duties consist of assisting the justices’ clerk, could still properly be said to be ’employing in assisting’ him. However, the context is of an employment which is comparable to that of the office of justices’ clerk. That is much more readily understandable in relation to someone whose main job is to assist the clerk, rather than someone who merely spends part of his time assisting the clerk’.
He concluded ‘It would be convenient if one could treat that dividing-line, between delegated and non-delegated functions, as corresponding precisely to the relevant distinction under regulation 3. However, that is not how the regulation is drafted. Nor does it appear, from the Tribunal’s finding, that there was in practice a clear dividing-line. Even the non-delegated functions seem to have been considerably more significant than those of ‘typists, secretaries or ushers.’ A conclusion that these duties, or some of them, also amounted to ‘assisting the clerk’, in the sense defined by the Tribunal, would not necessarily be unreasonable.’

Judges:

Carnwath J

Citations:

Times 10-May-2000, [2000] ICR 1003, [2000] EWHC Admin 326

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Justices of The Peace Act 1949 (Compensation) Regulations 1978 (1978 No 1682)

Cited by:

ApprovedSlee v Secretary of State for Justice (1) Admn 19-Nov-2007
The claimant sought compensation under the Regulations as a result of her dismissal on the re-organisation of the Magistrates Court at Wimbledon from her position as court clerk. The EAT had allowed her claim for unfair dismissal. Her position on . .
CitedSecretary 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Employment

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78358

Bernadone v Pall Mall Services Group Ltd and Others: QBD 2 Aug 1999

Where an undertaking was transferred, and there remained outstanding a liability of the employer to an employee for damages for personal injuries, even though not pleaded under Health and Safety legislation, was transferred to the transferee by virtue of the regulations to the new employer where the liability may also have arisen by virtue of the employer employee relationship.

Citations:

Times 02-Aug-1999

Statutes:

Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (1981 No 1794)

Cited by:

Appeal fromMartin v Lancashire County Council Appeal (and Cross Appeals) Bernadone v Pall Mall Services Group and Haringey Healthcare Nhs Trust and Independent Insurance Ltd CA 16-May-2000
Where an undertaking was transferred, existing liabilities arising out of the employment were transferred notwithstanding that these liabilities were not contractual. A claim for personal injuries became the responsibility of the new employer. At . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78364

Bhatt v Chelsea and Westminster Health Care Trust and Another: EAT 9 Sep 1997

The tribunal must first decide if a renewal of a fixed term contract was an extension or a re-engagement before deciding if unfair dismissal was possible: ‘We accept the submission that a contract for a fixed term may be extended as to its term, leaving the same contract in place. We accept too, that when a contract of employment for a fixed term of a year or more is extended as to its term by a lesser period, that extension alone is not to be taken as the correct point of focus for the purposes of s.197(1). The contract remains in place and the extension does not taken it outside s.197(1).’

Judges:

Kirkwood J

Citations:

Times 24-Oct-1997, [1997] UKEAT 479 – 97 – 0909, [1997] IRLR 660

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 197

Cited by:

CitedBritish Broadcasting Corporation v Kelly-Phillips CA 24-Apr-1998
When a one year fixed term employment contract was extended by a period of less than a year, but then not again renewed, there was no unfair dismissal, since the exemption for the original term applied also to any extension. There had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78382

Barber and Others v RJB Mining Uk Ltd: QBD 8 Mar 1999

The working time provisions now impose contractual obligations on employers. An employee, working hours over the limit, was entitled to cease work until such time as he was brought back within the maximum working hours. There could be no obligation to opt out.

Citations:

Times 08-Mar-1999, Gazette 06-May-1999

Statutes:

Working Time Regulations 1998 (1998 No 1833) 4(1)

Employment

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78180

Barnett v Brabyn (Inspector of Taxes): ChD 5 Jul 1996

Re-statement of character of contracts of employment and services and difference. The form of contract is important but not conclusive. It is necessary to look at the terms of the contract as a whole concentrating on the substantive rights and obligations of the parties and decide whether they are more or less strongly indicative of one form of relationship than the other.

Citations:

Times 05-Jul-1996, [1996] STC 716

Cited by:

CitedRobin Ray v Classic FM Plc PatC 18-Mar-1998
Contractor and Client Copyrights
The plaintiff had contributed a design for a system of classifying and selecting tracks to be played on a radio station. He did so under a consultancy contract.
Held: A Joint authorship claim required that the contributor had made some direct . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78236

Balmoral Group Ltd v Rae: EAT 25 Jan 2000

Where a tribunal looked to assess compensation for unfair dismissal, and issues of causation arose, the tribunal should take a broad approach looking fairly at what was just and equitable looking at the claimant’s loss and the extent to which the loss was attributable to the employer. It would normally be wrong to seek to apply considerations appropriate in other contexts such as forseeability, and remoteness of damage.

Citations:

Times 25-Jan-2000

Employment, Damages

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78126

Bank of Credit and Commerce International Sa (In Liquidation) v Ali and Another: ChD 17 Feb 1999

A compromise of a claim involved a settlement with the value given, and a release did not import requirement for any consideration. A compromised claim could not be set aside for lack of knowledge, and no duty of disclosure of any wrongdoing existed.

Judges:

Lightman J

Citations:

Times 25-Jan-1999, Gazette 17-Feb-1999, [1999] ICR 1068

Cited by:

See alsoBank of Credit and Commerce International Sa (In Compulsory Liquidation) v Munawar Ali, Sultana Runi Khan And Others (No 3) ChD 25-Jun-1999
In order for an employee to claim that his employer was conducting his business in an unlawful manner so as to destroy the relationship of trust and confidence between them, the activity had to be such that the employee could not reasonably be . .
At First InstanceBank of Credit and Commerce International SA v Ali, Khan and others (No 1); BCCI v Ali HL 1-Mar-2001
Cere Needed Releasing Future Claims
A compromise agreement which appeared to claim to settle all outstanding claims between the employee and employer, did not prevent the employee later claiming for stigma losses where, at the time of the agreement, the circumstances which might lead . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Litigation Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78147

Sun Valley Foods Limited v Vincent: 2000

The court considered the grant of ‘springboard relief’. Jonathan Parker J said: ‘For reasons which I have already explained, there is no room for doubt that the defendants have made unlawful use of material in which Sun Valley/Fields has a proprietary interest. But, as Nourse L.J. explained in Bullivant, that in itself is not enough to found a claim for ‘springboard’ relief. Sun Valley also has to establish (a) that the defendants thereby gained unfair competitive advantage over Sun Valley ‘to use the words of Roxburgh J.’ (an ‘unfair start’) and (b) as of today that advantage still exists and will continue to have effect unless the relief sought is granted.
It is, therefore, necessary to consider on the evidence as it stands (and, of necessity, without the benefit of cross-examination) the extent to which the unlawful copying of Fields’ material assisted the defendants in starting up Fusion’s business and in thereby shortening the start-up period.
In undertaking this task, I must bear in mind that there was nothing unlawful in the individual defendants making use of their own expertise and experience in setting up in competition with Sun Valley/Fields immediately following their resignations. In those respects, a ‘seamless transaction’ from Fields to Fusion was a legitimate aim which cannot found an application for ‘springboard’ relief.’

Judges:

Jonathan Parker J

Citations:

[2000] FSR 825

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedWhitmar Publications Ltd v Gamage and Others ChD 4-Jul-2013
Whitmar claimed damages for breach of contract; an account of profits; damages for breach of fiduciary duty and/or for infringement of its Database Rights under the Copyright and Rights in Database Regulations 1997; and for a permanent injunction . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Litigation Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.619038

Gamlen Chemical Co (UK) Ltd v Rochem Ltd: 1983

Goulding J said: ‘For servants during their employment and in breach of their contractual duty of fidelity to their master to engage in a scheme, secretly using their master’s time and money, to take the master’s customers and employees and make profit from them in a competing business built up to receive themselves on leaving the master’s service, I would have thought that commercial men and lawyers alike would say that that is fraud.’

Judges:

Goulding J

Citations:

[1983] RPC 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from (Dicta approved)Gamlen Chemical Co (UK) Ltd v Rochem Ltd CA 4-Dec-1979
Solicitors accepted instructions against a promise of sums on account of costs. After non-payment they began to apply to be removed from the record. The new solicitors sought transfer of the solicitors file, and obtained an order to that effect . .
CitedX v Y Ltd (Practice and Procedure – Disclosure) EAT 9-Aug-2018
Iniquity surpasses legal advice privilege
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Disclosure
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Striking-out/dismissal
An Employment Judge struck out paragraphs of the Claimant’s claim as they depended on an email in respect of which legal advice privilege was claimed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.621167

Coleman v S and W Baldwin: 1977

Whether unilateral changes to an employment contract amounted to a constructive dismissal.

Citations:

[1977] IRLR 342

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMcBride v Scottish Police Authority (Scotland) SC 15-Jun-2016
The court was asked whether the employment tribunal had been correct, after finding that the appellant had been unfairly dismissed, to order her reinstatement. She had worked as a fingerprint officer, but her reinstatement was to be on terms that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.618745

Lawrence David Limited v Ashton: CANI 1989

The American Cyanamid principles apply in cases of interlocutory injunctions in restraint of trade just as they do in other cases.

Citations:

[1989] IRLR 22

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Citing:

CitedAmerican Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd HL 5-Feb-1975
Interim Injunctions in Patents Cases
The plaintiffs brought proceedings for infringement of their patent. The proceedings were defended. The plaintiffs obtained an interim injunction to prevent the defendants infringing their patent, but they now appealed its discharge by the Court of . .

Cited by:

CitedWhitmar Publications Ltd v Gamage and Others ChD 4-Jul-2013
Whitmar claimed damages for breach of contract; an account of profits; damages for breach of fiduciary duty and/or for infringement of its Database Rights under the Copyright and Rights in Database Regulations 1997; and for a permanent injunction . .
CitedWhitmar Publications Ltd v Gamage and Others ChD 4-Jul-2013
Whitmar claimed damages for breach of contract; an account of profits; damages for breach of fiduciary duty and/or for infringement of its Database Rights under the Copyright and Rights in Database Regulations 1997; and for a permanent injunction . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.619036

Leigh v National Union of Railwaymen: 1970

Citations:

[1970] Ch 326

Cited by:

CitedFoster v McNicol and Another QBD 28-Jul-2016
Incumbent Labour leader did not need nominations
The claimant challenged a decision of the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party to allow its present Leader to stand in the leadership election challenging his position without the need for him to submit first the otherwise standard . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.567812

Hardaker v Idle District Council: CA 1896

A reservation of a right to direct or superintend the performance of the task cannot transform into a contract of service what in essence is an independent contract.
A statutory duty to maintain the highway could not be delegated to independent traders.
Lindley LJ identified an innominate class of cases in which an employer will be held liable for the negligence of an independent contractor engaged to perform what is conceived to be a duty owed by the employer to another: ‘It is not always easy to avoid mistakes in applying this, or indeed any other, principle to difficult cases, as is shewn by Gray v Pullen [25] and Butler v Hunter.[26] The latter case is inconsistent with Bower v Peate and Quarman v Burnett, the well-known job-master’s case. I will take the law, however, as it was laid down by Lord Blackburn in Dalton v Angus. Lord Blackburn there said: ‘Ever since Quarman v Burnett it has been considered settled law that one employing another is not liable for his collateral negligence, unless the relation of master and servant existed between them. So that a person employing a contractor to do work is not liable for the negligence of that contractor or his servants. On the other hand, a person causing something to be done, the doing of which casts on him a duty, cannot escape from the responsibility attaching on him of seeing that duty performed by delegating it to a contractor. He may bargain with the contractor that he shall perform the duty, and stipulate for an indemnity from him if it is not performed, but he cannot thereby relieve himself from liability to those injured by the failure to perform it…’ Lord Blackburn in this passage contrasts a contractor’s negligence, which he calls ‘collateral’ with failure on the part of a contractor to perform the duty of his employer. For the first the employer is not liable; for the second he is, whether the failure is attributable to negligence or not. Lord Blackburn’s language in Hughes v Percival shews that this is really what he meant, for he points out that the employer’s duty was to see that his contractor did his work properly. Lord Watson said the same thing.’

Judges:

Lindley, A L Smith LJJ

Citations:

(1896) 65 LJQB 363, (1896) 74 LT 69, [1896] 1 QB 335

Cited by:

CitedReady Mixed Concrete Southeast Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance QBD 8-Dec-1967
Contracts of service or for services
In three cases appeals were heard against a finding as to whether a worker was entitled to have his employer pay National Insurance contributions on his behalf which would apply if he were an employee. He worked as an ‘owner-driver’
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.567823

Association of University Teachers v University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne: EAT 1987

The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the definition of ‘being redundant’ in the 1992 Act covered the lack of further funding for the post of a lecturer employed under an Limited Term Contract and so the consultation duty should have been observed when the contract was not renewed.

Citations:

[1987] ICR 317

Statutes:

Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992

Cited by:

CitedUniversity and College Union v The University of Stirling SC 29-Apr-2015
The University needed to reduce its staff. They and the Union disputed whether research assistants on limited term contracts would simply cease to be employd as their terms concluded, or were entitled to be made redudant.
Held: The appeal was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.565707

Bents Brewery and Co Ltd v Hogan: 1945

The employer complained that the defendant had disclosed details of the plaintiffs’ weekly sales and total wages’ bill.
Held: These were confidential. In order to prove that the tort of unlawful interference with contractual relations was committed, it would be necessary to prove that the plaintiffs suffered sime damage.
An employee owes a duty to his employer not to disclose confidential information gained through the employment. This can be implied without explicit assertion in the contract.

Citations:

[1945] 2 All ER 570

Employment, Torts – Other

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.537577

Rogers v Bodfari (Transport): NIRC 1973

Time limits in the context of unfair dismissal claims go to jurisdiction, and that jurisdiction cannot be conferred on a tribunal by agreement or waiver. However, There is nothing to prevent the time bar issue in relation to a particular act being determined after a full hearing. Here, the point on jurisdiction was not heard until after the tribunal had considered the merits of the case.
Sir John Donaldson said: ‘Mr Mitchell, for the appellant, has given us every possible assistance. He has considered this matter very carefully and finally come up with two arguments, and they are these. First, in his submission, once a tribunal has reached a conclusion as to whether a man has been fairly or unfairly dismissed, it is too late to raise the time bar point. As to that, the major difficulty in his way is the decision of this Court in Westward Circuits Ltd v Read [1973] IRLR 138. There the Court held that bearing in mind the wording of para. 5 of the Sixth Schedule to the 1971 Act, the time limit must be regarded and interpreted as a jurisdictional provision – which of course the parties cannot waive – and not as a limitation provision which they can waive or may be stopped from taking’

Judges:

Sir John Donaldson

Citations:

[1973] IRLR 172

Cited by:

ApprovedDedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances CA 1973
The claimant sought to bring his claim under a provision which required a complaint to the industrial tribunal to be made within four weeks of the dismissal unless the employment tribunal was satisfied that this was not ‘practicable’. He did not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.503461