Tag: Employment

J P Jenkins v Kingsgate (Clothing Productions) Ltd: EAT 19 Jun 1981

The claimant worked part time. She said that she should have been paid at the same rate as her male full time equivalents, the failure being incompatible with her rights under Article 119.
Held: The scope of Article 119 EEC covers not only direct but also indirect discrimination. The difference between part-time and full-time work is by itself ‘a material difference’ for the purposes of Section 1(3). The decision of the European Court of Justice clearly establishes that a differential in pay cannot be justified simply by showing that the women are part-time workers, and, where the circumstances are such that part-time workers are wholly or mainly women, an employer cannot justify paying less for like work to a part-time woman than to a full-time man by simply relying on the fact that the woman is a part-time employee.

Judges:

Browne-Wilkinson J P

Citations:

[1981] 1 WLR 1485, [1981] ICR 715, [1981] UKEAT 145 – 79 – 1906, [1981] 2 CMLR 24, [1981] IRLR 228, [1981] ECR 911

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Equal Pay Act 1970, EEC Treaty 119

Citing:

Cited – J P Jenkins v Kingsgate (Clothing Productions) Ltd ECJ 31-Mar-1981
ECJ The fact that work paid at time rates is remunerated at an hourly rate which varies according to the number of hours worked per week does not offend against the principle of equal pay laid down in article 119 . .

Cited by:

Mentioned – Pickstone v Freemans Plc HL 30-Jun-1988
The claimant sought equal pay with other, male, warehouse operatives who were doing work of equal value but for more money. The Court of Appeal had held that since other men were also employed on the same terms both as to pay and work, her claim . .
Cited – E, Regina (on The Application of) v Governing Body of JFS and Another SC 16-Dec-2009
E complained that his exclusion from admission to the school had been racially discriminatory. The school applied an Orthodox Jewish religious test which did not count him as Jewish because of his family history.
Held: The school’s appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination, European

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.200625

Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc: CA 29 Jan 2001

Renewed application for permission to appeal.

Judges:

Mummery LJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 74

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc EAT 9-Jul-1997
. .
See Also – Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc EAT 20-Feb-1998
. .
See Also – Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc EAT 15-Jul-1999
. .
See Also – Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc EAT 12-May-2000
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc EAT 30-Apr-2001
Preliminary hearing on appeal – application for adjournment. Dismissed on papers. . .
See Also – Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc CA 5-Nov-2001
Leave to appeal refused. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.200717

Hyde v Lehman Brothers Ltd: EAT 4 Aug 2004

Judges:

Cox J

Citations:

[2004] UKEAT 0121 – 04 – 0408

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See also – Hyde v Lehman Brothers Limited EAT 22-Mar-2004
EAT Unlawful Deduction from Wages
EAT Unlawful Deduction from Wages – (no sub-topic). . .

Cited by:

Cited – Science Warehouse Ltd v Mills EAT 9-Oct-2015
EAT Practice and Procedure : Amendment – Amendment of an ET claim to add a new cause of action – ACAS Early Conciliation (Section 18A Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (as amended))
At a Preliminary Hearing, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.200405

Ministry of Defence v Armstrong and Another: EAT 7 Apr 2004

The MOD (the Appellants) contend that the Employment Tribunal erred in law in holding, in a Decision promulgated on 17 September 2002 after a preliminary hearing, that they had not established a ‘material factor’ defence to the Respondents’ claims for equal pay, pursuant to the provisions of the Equal Pay Act 1970 and Article 141 of the Treaty of Rome.

Judges:

Cox J

Citations:

[2004] UKEAT 1239 – 02 – 0704, [2004] UKEAT 1239 – 02 – 0704, [2004] IRLR 672

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.196814

Wilson (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Clayton: ChD 29 Apr 2004

Taxability of compensation paid on compromise of claims after dismissal. The employer introduced new terms, withdrawing car benefits. Having refused the new terms the taxpayer was dismissed. A tribunal held him unfairly dismissed. The council re-instated him and others and made a compensatory payment. The Revenue contended that the re-instatement made the payment taxable.
Held: The cases of Hochstrasser and Wilmshurst set the test for what wa staxable pay. This payment resulted from a negotiated settlement, and was directly consequential of the dismissal and finding of unfair dismissal. The payment was not taxable because it was under andpound;30,000.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Patten

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 898 (Ch), Times 07-Jun-2004, Gazette 13-May-2004, [2004] STC 1022

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 148

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Shilton v Wilmshurst HL 7-Feb-1991
The taxpayer was transferred from one football club to another. He was paid andpound;75,000 to persuade him to move. The revenue appealed a decision that this was not a sum taxable as an emolument under Schedule E by the new employer.
Held: . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Wilson (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Clayton CA 7-Dec-2004
The claim against the defendant at the tribunal had been settled by a compromise which had then been the subject of an order by the tribunal. The Revenue sought to charge the payment to income tax.
Held: It had been paid ‘in connection with’ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax, Employment

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.196104

Wheeler v Qualitydeep Ltd T/A Thai Royale Restaurant (In Liquidation): EAT 2 Mar 2004

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Compensation – Unfair Dismissal – Acquiescence / knowledge of illegality of contract prevented a claim for unfair dismissal.

Judges:

His Hon Judge McMullen QC

Citations:

UKEAT/0998/03, [2004] UKEAT 0998 – 03 – 1604

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Wheeler v Qualitydeep Ltd. (T/A Thai Royale Restaurant) CA 30-Jul-2004
The employee, a foreign national with only limited command of English, claimed unfair dismissal. It was responded on behalf of her former employers, now in liquidation, that there could be no unfair dismissal since there had been no deductions of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.196035

Spencer v HM Prison Service Agency: EAT 3 Dec 2003

EAT Practice and Procedure – Preliminary issues

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Rimer

Citations:

[2004] UKEAT 0812 – 02 – 0403, UKEAT/812/02

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Owusu v London Fire and Civil Defence Authority EAT 1-Mar-1995
The employee complained of his employer’s repeated failure to regrade him, and alleged discrimination. The employer said his claim was out of time.
Held: Mummery J made the distinction between single acts of discrimination, and continuing . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.195461

Strouthos v London Underground Ltd: CA 18 Mar 2004

The claimant had been dismissed after being accused of taking a staff car to France and having it impounded for suspected importation of cigarettes and alcohol above personal use limits.
Held: ‘It is a basic proposition, whether in criminal or disciplinary proceedings, that the charge against the defendant or the employee facing dismissal should be precisely framed, and that evidence should be confined to the particulars given in the charge.’ Length of service is a relevant consideration for a tribunal to take into account when considering the fairness of the employer’s aproach. The ET had been entitled to reach the conclusion they did reach.

Judges:

May, Pill, Dyson LJJ

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 402, [2004] IRLR 636

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Right Act 1996 98

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – London Underground Ltd v Strouthos EAT 4-Jun-2003
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason. . .
Cited – British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell EAT 1978
B had been dismissed for allegedly being involved with a number of other employees in acts of dishonesty relating to staff purchases. She had denied the abuse. The tribunal had found the dismissal unfair in the methods used to decide to dismiss her. . .
Cited – Foley v Post Office; HSBC Bank Plc (Formerly Midland Bank Plc) v Madden CA 31-Jul-2000
When an Employment Tribunal looked at whether a dismissal was reasonable, the test related not to an assessment of what tribunal members would think or do, but rather whether to ask whether the employer’s response was within a ‘band or range of . .
Cited – London Borough of Harrow v Cunningham EAT 2-Nov-1995
The council appealed a finding that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed. He worked in the Cleansing Department, but took on additional private work in refuge disposal in breach of his contract. A co-worker who had done the same was not . .
Cited – AEI Cables Limited v McLay SCS 1980
It was found that the only remaining reason for supporting the decision that the dismissal was unfair, was identified as the employee’s length of service — the remaining reason given by the industrial tribunal for finding the dismissal unfair.
Cited – Bentley Engineering Co Ltd v Mistry EAT 1978
In employment disciplinary proceedings, natural justice required that a man should have a chance to state his own case and to know sufficiently what was being said against him, so that he could put forward his own case properly.
Slynn J said: . .
Cited – Fuller v Lloyds Bank PLC EAT 1991
The tribunal emphasised the need for a disciplinary procedure to be fair in providing an employee opportunities to know the case against him, and the evidence, and to be given chance to dispute that evidence. . .
Cited – Spink v Express Foods Limited EAT 1990
Wood J said: ‘It is a fundamental part of a fair disciplinary procedure that an employee know the case against him. Fairness requires that someone accused should know the case to be met; should hear or be told the important parts of the evidence in . .
See Also – London Underground Ltd v Strouthos CA 17-Dec-2003
Application for permission to appeal from EAT – granted . .

Cited by:

Cited – Mars UK Ltd T/A Masterfoods v K Parker EAT 24-Oct-2005
EAT Whether an Employment Tribunal took a permissible approach to determining that a dismissal was unfair, in circumstances in which it did not clearly set out the terms of section 98 of the Employment Rights Act . .
Cited – Knight v Treherne Care and Consultancy Ltd EAT 15-Apr-2009
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL
The Employment Tribunal erred when it found the employee was not unfairly dismissed. There was no disciplinary hearing. In the light of London Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Small [2009] . .
Cited – Leonard v Scottish Prison Service EAT 18-Jul-2012
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal
Dismissal of prison officer for gross misconduct, namely that he was ‘negligent in [his] duty in failing to take appropriate action when an incident . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.195112

Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Ainsworth, Kilic, Stringer, Thwaites: EAT 4 Feb 2004

EAT Working Time Regulations – Holiday pay

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (P)

Citations:

[2004] UKEAT 0650 – 03 – 0402, UKEAT/650/03, UKEAT/745/03 UKEA

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Statutes:

Working Time Regulations 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Inland Revenue v Ainsworth and others CA 22-Apr-2005
The court considered the calculation of hours under the Regulations when the employee was on extended sickness leave of absence.
Held: Once an employee had exhausted their sick pay entitlement, it was not open to them in addition then to claim . .
At EAT – Stringer and Others v Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs; Schultz-Hoff v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund ECJ 20-Jan-2009
(Grand Chamber) Several employees claimed that having been absent from work sick, they were entitled to carry forward their unused holiday entitlements, or if a former worker, to pay in lieu under the Working Time directive.
Held: The workers . .
At EAT – Revenue and Customs v Stringer, Ainsworth and Others HL 10-Jun-2009
In each case, the employee had retired after long term sickness. The Employment tribunal had upheld their ability to claim arrears of sickness pay arising under the 1998 Regulations, as an unlawful deduction from their wages. They now appealed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.194194

Lane Group Plc, North Somerset Council v Farmiloe: EAT 24 Nov 2003

EAT Disability Discrimination – Reasonable adjustments
EAT Disability Discrimination – Reasonable adjustments.

Judges:

His Hon Judge Clark

Citations:

[2004] UKEAT 0352 – 03 – 2201, UKEAT/352/03, UKEAT/357/03

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.192671

Thompson v Age Concern: EAT 9 Jan 2004

EAT Practice and Procedure – Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity

Judges:

His Hon Judge Mcmullen QC

Citations:

[2004] UKEAT 0728 – 03 – 0202, UKEAT/728/03

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Tuntum Housing Association v Aryeetey EAT 12-Oct-2007
EAT Time Limits – Reasonably practicability
Practice and Procedure – Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity
Chairman’s mistake as to necessity for further claim following Claimant’s solicitors . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.192664

Glen Dimplex UK Ltd v Burrows: EAT 6 Oct 2003

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Compensation

Citations:

EAT/265/03, [2003] EAT 0265 – 03 – 0610, [2003] UKEAT 0265 – 03 – 0610

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Glen Dimplex UK Ltd v G Burrows EAT 11-Jul-2003
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Compensation. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.191869

Her Majesty’s Attorney General v Tyrrell: EAT 4 Jun 2003

Application for restriction of proceedings order – Practice and Procedure – Split hearings

Judges:

Burton J P

Citations:

[2003] EAT 0236 – 03 – 0406, [2003] UKEAT 0236 – 03 – 0406, EAT/236/03

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Tyrrell v Transport and General Workers Union EAT 1-Oct-1998
. .
See Also – Tyrrel v Transport and General Workers Union EAT 31-Mar-2000
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.191646

Apelogun-Gabriels v London Borough of Lambeth and Another (No 2): EAT 16 Jul 2003

EAT Practice and Procedure – Estoppel or Abuse of Process.

Judges:

His Hon Judge Clark

Citations:

[2003] EAT 1108 – 02 – 1607, [2003] UKEAT 1108 – 02 – 1607, EAT/1102/02

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Apelogun-Gabriels v London Borough of Lambeth and Another EAT 15-Jan-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.191690

Foster v Somerset County Council: EAT 8 May 2003

leave to appeal

Citations:

[2003] EAT 1523 – 02 – 0805, [2003] UKEAT 1523 – 02 – 0805

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Application for leave – C Foster v Somerset County Council EAT 28-Jul-2003
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for dismissal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.191570

Von-Goetz v South Thames Department of Post Graduate Medical and Dental Education: EAT 30 Apr 2003

EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Appeal Tribunal
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Appeal Tribunal.

Judges:

His Hon Judge Clark

Citations:

EAT/1415/01, [2003] UKEAT 1415 – 01 – 3004

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Von-Goetz v South Thames Department of Post Graduate Medical and Dental Education EAT 5-Nov-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.191541

Murray v Newham Citizens Advice Bureau Ltd: EAT 11 Mar 2003

Citations:

[2003] UKEAT 554 – 01 – 1103

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – E Murray v Newham Citizens Advice Bureau Ltd EAT 14-Jan-2003
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Appeal Tribunal. . .
See Also – E Murray v Newham Citizens Advice Bureau EAT 6-Jul-2000
EAT Disability Discrimination – Jurisdiction . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.191449

Harada Ltd (T/A Chequepoint Uk) v Turner: EAT 25 Feb 2003

EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal.

Judges:

His Hon Judge Ansell

Citations:

[2003] EAT 636 – 02 – 2502, [2003] UKEAT 636 – 02 – 2502

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, EAT

Citing:

See Also – Turner v Harada Ltd (T/A Chequepoint UK) EAT 23-Mar-1999
Appeal by Mr Turner against an Employment Tribunal’s order that his case on the merits be not heard until after the Employment Appeal Tribunal has heard and determined an appeal by his former employers, which they wish to make against a previous . .
See Also – Harada Ltd (T/A Chequepoint UK Ltd) v Turner EAT 15-Jul-1999
Appeal against finding that defendant was subject to the jurisdiction of the court. . .
See Also – Harada Ltd T/A Chequepoint UK Ltd v Turner EAT 2-Nov-1999
EAT Jurisdiction – . .
See Also – Harada Ltd v Turner CA 6-Apr-2001
The claimant had sought damages alleging unfair dismissal and unlawful deductions from his wages. The defendant argued that it was not subject to the jurisdiction of the court. During preliminary discussions, the judge hearing the application was . .

Cited by:

See Also – Harada Ltd (T/A Chequepoint UK) v Turner EAT 17-Mar-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.191357

Sule-Charles v Customs and Excise: EAT 3 Apr 2003

Citations:

[2003] UKEAT 1310 – 01 – 0304

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Dr Anya v University of Oxford and Another CA 22-Mar-2001
Discrimination – History of interactions relevant
When a tribunal considered whether the motive for an act was discriminatory, it should look not just at the act, but should make allowance for earlier acts which might throw more light on the act in question. The Tribunal should assess the totality . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.191537

King v The University Court of the University of St Andrews: OHCS 3 Jul 2003

Judges:

Lord Bracadale

Citations:

[2003] ScotCS 186

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

See also – King v University Court of the University of St Andrews SCS 30-Jan-2002
The University had employed the pursuer on terms that it was entitled ‘for good cause shown to terminate the appointment of the employee by giving three months’ notice in writing’. He claimed on two bases, first, a breach of the alleged express term . .

Cited by:

See also – King v University Court of the University of St Andrews SCS 30-Jan-2002
The University had employed the pursuer on terms that it was entitled ‘for good cause shown to terminate the appointment of the employee by giving three months’ notice in writing’. He claimed on two bases, first, a breach of the alleged express term . .
See also – King v University Court of the University of St Andrews OHCS 3-Jun-2005
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.190898

Propertycare Ltd v T Gower and others: EAT 14 Nov 2003

EAT Contract of Employment – Definition of employee

Judges:

His Hon Judge Clark

Citations:

UKEAT/547/03, [2003] UKEAT 0547 – 03 – 1411

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – T Gover and others v Propertycare Ltd EAT 22-Nov-2005
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Polkey deduction.
The ET had found basic failings in the way the employers had sought to change employment contracts. This led to constructive dismissals and a finding of unfair . .
See Also – Gover and others v Propertycare Ltd CA 28-Mar-2006
The claimants appealed dismissal of their claims for unfair dismissal, on the basis that they had been substantially dismissed as sales agents after rejecting conditions imposed unilaterally by their employers. Their damages had been limited to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.190541

Cunningham v Oaklands College: EAT 6 Nov 2003

Judges:

His Hon Judge Birtles

Citations:

UKEAT/437/03, [2003] UKEAT 0437 – 03 – 0611

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – London Borough of Harrow v Cunningham EAT 2-Nov-1995
The council appealed a finding that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed. He worked in the Cleansing Department, but took on additional private work in refuge disposal in breach of his contract. A co-worker who had done the same was not . .
See Also – Cunningham v Quedos Ltd and Another EAT 20-Aug-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.190544

Vaidyanathan v Milton Keynes Council: EAT 25 Nov 2003

EAT Practice and Procedure – Appearance

Judges:

His Hon Judge Ansell

Citations:

UKEAT/670/03, [2003] UKEAT 0670 – 03 – 1812

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Reid Minty (a firm) v Taylor CA 2002
New CPR govern Indemnity Costs awards
The defendant had successfully defended the main claim and now appealed against the refusal of an order for costs on an indemnity basis even though judge thought that the claimants had behaved unreasonably. He had said that some conduct deserving of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.190539

Murali v British Medical Association: EAT 8 Sep 2003

EAT Race Discrimination – Indirect

Judges:

Her Honour Judge A Wakefield

Citations:

UKEAT/850/02/SM, [2003] UKEAT 0850 – 02 – 0912

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Owusu v London Fire and Civil Defence Authority EAT 1-Mar-1995
The employee complained of his employer’s repeated failure to regrade him, and alleged discrimination. The employer said his claim was out of time.
Held: Mummery J made the distinction between single acts of discrimination, and continuing . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.190164

V v Commission T-200/03: ECFI 28 Nov 2003

(Order) Application for interim measures.

Citations:

[2003] EUECJ T-200/03

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Order – V v Commission T-200/03 ECJ 21-Feb-2006
Officials – Dismissal for incompetence – Article 51 of the Staff Regulations – Manifest error of assessment – Misuse of powers – Duty of care – Rights of the defense – Proportionality – Equal treatment – Statement of reasons – Staff report – . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.189907