Tag: Employment

Von-Goetz v South Thames Department of Post Graduate Medical and Dental Education: EAT 5 Nov 2003

Citations:

[2003] EAT 1415 – 01 – 0511, [2003] UKEAT 1415 – 01 – 0511

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – 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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188770

Roberts v West Coast Trains Ltd: EAT 24 Jul 2003

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for dismissal
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Elias

Citations:

EAT/312/03, [2003] EAT 0312 – 03 – 2407, [2003] UKEAT 0312 – 03 – 2407

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Hogg v Dover College EAT 1990
The claimant asserted unfair dismissal after his contract was changed to provide that his post as head of the history department would be part time. He had been ill, and the head teacher reduced his teaching periods. He accepted the change in . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Roberts v West Coast Trains Ltd CA 16-Jun-2004
The employee had been dismissed. He began a claim for unfair dismissal, but also appealed within his employers’ procedure, accepting a demotion. The tribunal then found that he had not been dismissed.
Held: There had been no dismissal. Had he . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188082

Uzoechina v Immigration Advisory Service: EAT 20 Oct 2003

EAT Practice and Procedure – Costs

Judges:

His Hon Judge Clark

Citations:

EAT/108/03, EAT/992/02, [2003] EAT 0992 – 02 – 2010, [2003] UKEAT 0992 – 02 – 2010

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Uzoechina v Immigration Advisory Service EAT 16-Jan-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.187858

Knotts v United Friendly Insurance Plc: EAT 23 Jun 2003

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Exclusions

Judges:

Mr Recorder Luba QC

Citations:

EAT/702/02, [2003] EAT 0702 – 02 – 2306, [2003] UKEAT 0702 – 02 – 2306

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Knotts v United Friendly Insurance Plc EAT 28-Oct-2002
. .

Cited by:

Ssee Also – Knotts v United Friendly Insurance Plc EAT 28-Oct-2002
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.187636

Henry v London Borough of Newham: EAT 13 May 2003

EAT Race Discrimination – Indirect.

Judges:

His Hon Judge Birtles QC

Citations:

[2003] EAT 0991 – 02 – 2907, EAT/991/02

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Henry v London Borough of Newham EAT 6-Dec-2002
. .
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 . .

Cited by:

See Also – Henry v London Borough of Newham EAT 29-Jul-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.187233

Kingston Upon Hull City Council v Dunnachie: EAT 23 Jun 2003

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Procedural fairness/automatically unfair dismissal.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (P)

Citations:

EAT/706/02, [2003] EAT 0706 – 02 – 2306, [2003] UKEAT 0706 – 02 – 2306

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Dunnachie v Kingston Upon Hull City Council; Williams v Southampton Institute; Dawson v Stonham Housing Association EAT 8-Apr-2003
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Compensation
In each case, The employee sought additional damages for non-economic loss after an unfair dismissal.
Held: The Act could be compared with the Discrimination Acts . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Dunnachie v Kingston Upon Hull City Council CA 11-Feb-2004
Compensation for non-economic loss brought about by the manner of an unfair dismissal is, on authority and on principle, recoverable. The award of such compensation by the employment tribunal in the present case was not excessive and was adequately . .
See Also – Kingston Upon Hull City Council v Dunnachie; HSBC Bank Plc v Drage EAT 7-Jul-2003
EAT Practice and Procedure – Costs
EAT Practice and Procedure – Costs. . .
See Also – Dunnachie v Kingston-upon-Hull City Council HL 15-Jul-2004
The claimant sought damages following his dismissal to include a sum to reflect the manner of his dismissal and the distress caused.
Held: The remarks of Lord Hoffmann in Johnson -v- Unysis were obiter. The court could not, under the section, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.186495

The University of Huddersfield v Dr P R Wolff: EAT 16 Jul 2003

EAT Sex Discrimination – Burden of proof

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (P)

Citations:

EAT/596/02, [2003] EAT 0596 – 02 – 1607, [2003] UKEAT 0596 – 02 – 1607

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, EATn

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.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.186385

S J Chinyanga v Buffer Bear Limited: EAT 8 May 2003

EAT Race Discrimination – Indirect

Judges:

His Hon Judge McMullen QC

Citations:

EAT/300/02, [2003] EAT 0300 – 02 – 0805, [2003] UKEAT 0300 – 02 – 0805

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, EATn

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.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.185937

Securiplan v Bademosi: EAT 9 May 2003

EAT Trade Union Rights – Dismissal – application of the TUPE Regulations where the transferor and the employee did not intend the contract of employment to be transferred.

Judges:

His Hon Judge McMullen QC

Citations:

EAT/1128/02, [2003] EAT 1128 – 02 – 0905, [2003] UKEAT 1128 – 02 – 0905

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.185935

Susie Radin Limited v GMB and others: EAT 24 Jun 2003

EAT Redundancy – Protective award

Judges:

His Hon Judge D M Levy QC

Citations:

EAT/712/02, [2003] EAT 0712 – 02 – 2406, [2003] UKEAT 0712 – 02 – 2406

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, EATn

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Susie Radin Ltd v GMB and others CA 20-Feb-2004
The company made redundancies but failed to carry out any effective or honest consultation. The tribunal awarded the maximum 90 days protective order. The company appealed saying that it had given the employees greater notice than was strictly due. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.185783

L A Preedy v HMO Giddy T/A Easterhill Furniture: EAT 15 May 2003

EAT Practice and Procedure – Postponement

Judges:

His Hon Judge Mcmullen QC

Citations:

EAT/287/03, [2003] EAT 0287 – 03 – 1505, [2003] UKEAT 0287 – 03 – 1505

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – L A Preedy v J Smith T/A Easterhill Furniture H N Giddy EAT 26-Apr-2002
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal . .

Cited by:

See Also – L A Preedy v J Smith T/A Easterhill Furniture H N Giddy EAT 26-Apr-2002
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.185478

Mitchell and others v Amersham and Wycombe College: EAT 31 Mar 2003

EAT Working Time Regulations – An appeal by Ms Mitchell, Ms Lynn and Mr Nagulendran, part-time lecturers employed by the Respondent College, against a decision of the London (Central) Employment Tribunal promulgated with extended reasons on 22 March 2002, dismissing their complaints of failure to pay holiday pay contrary to the Working Time Regulations 1998 (the Regulations).

Judges:

His Honour Judge Peter Clark

Citations:

EAT/483/02, [2003] EAT 0483 – 02 – 3103, [2003] UKEAT 0483 – 02 – 3103

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Distinguished – Telephone Information Services v Wilkinson EAT 1991
The employee was dismissed. His employers offered to pay to him andpound;9,699, the maximum sum he could have been awarded if the matter went to the tribunal, but made no admission of liability. He rejected the offer, saying that he wanted the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.185505

Frewin v Consignia Plc: EAT 9 Jun 2003

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Reid QC

Citations:

EAT/0981/02, [2003] EAT 0981 – 02 – 1807, [2003] UKEAT 0981 – 02 – 1807

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, EATn

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – McAdie v Royal Bank of Scotland CA 31-Jul-2007
The claimant succeeded in her claim for unfair dismissal, but now appealed against the reversal of the decision by the EAT. She had been dismissed for incapability to which she had contributed by her conduct. She had refused a move to another bank . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.185283

McPherson v BNP Paribas Branch: EAT 28 May 2003

EAT Practice and Procedure – Application/Claim.

Judges:

His Hon Judge Birtles

Citations:

EAT/916/02, [2003] EAT 0916 – 02 – 1407, [2003] UKEAT 0916 – 02 – 1407

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – McPherson v BNP Paribas SA (London Branch) CA 14-May-2004
The claimant withdrew his claim in the Employment Tribunal. By then, his employer had incurred very substantial legal costs. He appealed against the order for costs against him.
Held: The tribunal had wrongly asked whether the withdrawal of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.185288

C Foster v Somerset County Council: EAT 28 Jul 2003

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for dismissal

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Elias

Citations:

EAT/355/03, [2003] EAT 0355 – 03 – 3107, [2003] UKEAT 0355 – 03 – 3107

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Application for leave – Foster v Somerset County Council EAT 8-May-2003
leave to appeal . .
Appealed to – Foster v Somerset County Council CA 13-Feb-2004
. .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Foster v Somerset County Council CA 13-Feb-2004
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.185267

Nagarajan v Agnew: EAT 21 Jul 1993

Mr Nagarajan, of Indian birth, had brought several complaints to the Tribunal based on race. A settlement was reached on or about 1st November 1989 in full and final settlement of all his claims arising out of his employment with London Underground Ltd. His employment by LUL had ceased by then. Mr Nagarajan, after a spell of unemployment, applied for a job with LUL’s holding company, LRT. Mr Agnew, a manager, on being asked to fill in a form about that application, firmly recommended against Mr Nagarajan’s re-employment. LRT rejected the job application. The company now appealed against a finding of discrimination victimisatio.
Held: The appeal succeeded. There has to be a ‘subsisting employment relationship’ at the time when the events complained of in section 4(2) of the Act occur. The majority of the events listed in that subsection can occur only during employment, the whole provision is couched in the present tense, and had Parliament intended to include post-employment benefits, it would have made that intention explicit. The claimant being no longer employed, the decision was fundamentally flawed.
Where there are mixed motives for the action complained of, the unlawful motive must be of sufficient weight in the decision making process to be treated as a cause of the act so motivated.

Judges:

Knox J

Citations:

[1995] ICR 520, [1993] UKEAT 270 – 92 – 2107

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Race Relations Act 1976 4(2)

Cited by:

Cited – Relaxion Group plc v Rhys-Harper; D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth; Jones v 3M Healthcare Limited and three other actions HL 19-Jun-2003
The court considered whether discriminatory acts after the termination of employment were caught by the respective anti-discrimination Acts. The acts included a failure to give proper references. They pursued claims on the basis of victimisation . .
Cited – O’Neill v Governors of St Thomas More RC School and Another EAT 24-May-1996
The claimant had been dismissed as a teacher by the respondent Roman Catholic school after she became pregnant by a priest. She had been found to have been unfairly dismissed, but the tribunal had rejected her claim of discrimination for pregnancy. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.183814

Macculloch and Wallis Ltd v O’Moore: EAT 11 Feb 2003

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for dismissal

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (P)

Citations:

EAT/52/02, [2003] UKEAT 51 – 02 – 1102

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – MacCulloch and Wallis Ltd v Moore EAT 11-Feb-2003
EAT Time Off – Public duties . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.183617

Qureshi v Victoria University of Manchester: EAT 21 Jun 1996

The Industrial Tribunal only has jurisdiction to consider and rule upon the act or acts of which complaint is made to it. The questions on a complaint of race discrimination are: (a) Did the act complained of actually occur? (b) If the act complained of occurred in time, was there a difference in race involving the applicant? (c) If a difference in race was involved, was the applicant treated less favourably than the alleged discriminator treated or would treat other persons of a different racial group in the same, or not materially different, relevant circumstances? (d) If there was difference in treatment involving persons of a different race, was that treatment ‘on racial grounds’? Were racial grounds an effective cause of the difference in treatment? What explanation of the less favourable treatment is given by the respondent?

Mummery J said: ‘In the present case, it was necessary for the Tribunal to examine all the allegations made by Dr Qureshi of other incidents relied upon by him as evidentiary facts of race discrimination in the matters complained of. There is a tendency, however, where many evidentiary incidents or items are introduced, to be carried away by them and to treat each of the allegations, incidents or items as if they were themselves the subject of a complaint. In the present case it was necessary for the Tribunal to find the primary facts about those allegations. It was not, however, necessary for the Tribunal to ask itself, in relation to each such incident or item, whether it was itself explicable on ‘racial grounds’ or on other grounds. That is a misapprehension about the nature and purpose of evidentiary facts. The function of the Tribunal is to find the primary facts from which they will be asked to draw inferences and then for the Tribunal to look at the totality of those facts (including the respondent’s explanations) in order to see whether it is legitimate to infer that the acts or decisions complained of in the originating applications were on ‘racial grounds’. The fragmented approach by the Tribunal in this case would inevitably have the effect of diminishing any eloquence that the cumulative effect of the primary facts might have on the issue of racial grounds. The process of inference is itself a matter of applying common sense and judgment to the facts, and assessing the probabilities on the issue whether racial grounds were an effective cause of the acts complained of or were not. The assessment of the parties and their witnesses when they give evidence also form an important part of the process of inference. The Tribunal may find the force of the primary facts is sufficient to justify an inference of racial grounds. It may find that any inference that it might have made is negated by a satisfactory explanation from the respondent of non-racial grounds of action or decision.’

Judges:

Mummery J

Citations:

[2001] ICR 863, [1996] UKEAT 484 – 95 – 2305, EAT/484/95

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – King v Great Britain China Centre CA 1991
The court considered the nature of evidence which will be available to tribunals considering a race discrimination claim.
Held: A complainant must prove his or her case on the balance of probabilities, but it is unusual to find direct evidence . .
Cited – Chapman and Another v Simon CA 1994
The Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider and rule upon other acts of racial discrimination not included in the complaints in the Originating Application.
Racial discrimination may be established as a matter of direct primary . .

Cited by:

Approved – 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 . .
Cited – The Law Society v Kamlesh Bahl EAT 7-Jul-2003
EAT Sex Discrimination – Direct
The complainant had been suspended from her position as Vice President of the Law Society. The Society and its officers appealed findings of sex and race discrimination . .
Cited – Law Society v Bahl CA 30-Jul-2004
The claimant had succeeded before the employment tribunal in her claim of race discrimination by the respondent and senior officers. She now appealed the reversal of that judgment. The claimant asked the tribunal to draw inferences of discrimination . .
Cited – Driskel v Peninsula Business Services Ltd Michael Huss Anthony Sutcliffe, Peter Done EAT 17-Dec-1999
EAT The claimant said that she had been subjected to crass sexual banter by her senior manager. She refused to take up a post unless he was moved, and when he declined to so, she was dismissed.
The court . .
Cited – Lisboa v Realpubs Ltd and Others EAT 11-Jan-2011
lisboa_realpubsEAT11
EAT SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION
Whether Respondent’s policy of encouraging a wider clientele at a formerly gay pub involved less favourable treatment of gay customers causing the Claimant to resign in . .
Cited – Cumbria Probation Board v Collingwood EAT 28-May-2008
EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
Disability / Disability related discrimination / Reasonable adjustments
JURISDICTIONAL POINTS
>2002 Act and pre-action requirements
The date of disability is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.183405

Croft v Broadstairs and St Peter’s Town Council: CA 15 Apr 2003

The claimant acted as the town clerk. After an unexpected letter about her conduct there were meetings and correspondence. Her initial shock and distress were so exacerbated that she was rendered incapable of work through depression. The triggering factor was not the work she was required to do but receipt of the letter which the council accepted would not have been written had it known of her psychiatric problems. The judge found for Mrs Croft.
Held: The fact that two town councillors knew that Mrs Croft had been undergoing counselling was not enough to establish that the council knew of her psychiatric vulnerability. Potter LJ: that left the council in a position of employers who were entitled to expect ordinary robustness in Mrs Croft in an employment context, including disciplinary matters in which she had never been involved before. Her breakdown was not reasonably foreseeable.

Judges:

Potter LJ

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 676

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Hartman v South Essex Mental Health and Community Care NHS Trust etc CA 19-Jan-2005
The court considered the liability of employers for stress injury to several employees.
Held: Though the principles of awarding damages for stress related psychiatric injury are the same as those for physical injury, the issues have still . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Employment

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.182328

BLP UK Ltd v Marsh: CA 16 Jan 2003

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 132

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – BLP UK Ltd v Marsh EAT 10-Apr-2002
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Other . .
Leave – BLP UK Ltd v Marsh CA 23-Aug-2002
application for permission to appeal . .
See Also – BLP UK Ltd v Marsh EAT 12-Jun-2001
. .

Cited by:

CA Appeal – BLP UK Ltd v Marsh CA 23-Aug-2002
application for permission to appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.180709

Green v The Governing Body Victoria Road Primary School Kent County Council: EAT 24 Feb 2003

EAT Jurisdiction – appeal from an Employment Tribunal held at Ashford, Kent, who, following a Preliminary Hearing on 27 February 2002, unanimously decided that the named second Respondents, Kent County Council, should be dismissed from the proceedings.

Judges:

His Hon Judge Ansell

Citations:

EAT/447/02, [2003] EAT 0447 – 02 – 1803, [2003] UKEAT 0447 – 02 – 1803, [2004] ICR 684

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, EAT

Cited by:

Cited – Murphy v Slough Borough Council Governing Body of Langleywood School CA 16-Feb-2005
The court was asked as to who was the appropriate respondent when a claim for disability discrimination is brought by a teacher employed at a maintained community school with a delegated budget. The teacher’s contract of employment is with the local . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.180598

Nicholls v London Borough of Greenwich: CA 3 Apr 2003

The claimant had been employed by the respondent, and earned a pension. She challenged legislation which appeared to operate retrospectively to reduce that pension. The respondent argued that the amount agreed to be paid exceeded the maximum statutory amount, and that a payment made upon termination was not to an officer holding a position.
Held: The promise of payment of a retirement gratuity was a term or condition of the contract appointing her to hold office as a school cleaner. It was a part of her employment package. That her contract was terminating did not mean it was not paid to her as a person holding office. Retrospectivity which appeared to take away a right should only be read from the clearest of words.

Judges:

Lord Justice May, Lord Justice Mummery The President

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 416, Times 21-Apr-2003

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Superannuation Act 1972 7

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Yew Bon Tew v Kenderaan Bas Mara PC 7-Oct-1982
(Malaysia) In 1972 the appellants were injured by the respondent’s bus. At that time the local limitation period was 12 months. In 1974 the limitation period became three years. The appellants issued a writ in 1975. To succeed they would have to sue . .
Cited – Arnold v Central Electricity Generating Board HL 22-Oct-1987
The plaintiff was widow and administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband. He had worked from April 1938 to April 1943 for a predecessor to the CEGB. He had been exposed to asbestos dust as a result of his employer’s negligence and breach of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional, Employment

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.180454

Donnelan and others v Britton Taco Ltd: EAT 8 Oct 2002

EAT Transfer of Undertakings – Dismissal
EAT Transfer of Undertakings – Dismissal.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Wall

Citations:

[2002] EAT 1058 – 00 – 1012, EAT/1058/00

Links:

Bailii, EATn, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Donnelan and others v Britton Taco Ltd EAT 29-Nov-2000
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Donnelan and others v Britton Taco Ltd EAT 10-Dec-2002
EAT Redundancy – Collective Consultation and Information . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.179974

Douglas McFarlane v Shell (UK) Ltd: EAT 20 Nov 2002

EAT The tribunal asked whether the claimant was disabled within the Act. He suffered depression, but the tribunal had found it not substantial and not capable of lasting more than 12 months.
EAT Disability Discrimination – Disability.

Judges:

The Honourable Lord Johnston

Citations:

EATS/0016/02, [2002] UKEAT 0016 – 02 – 2011

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995 1

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178504

A Power v Panasonic UK Ltd: EAT 17 Sep 2002

EAT The tribunal had held that the applicant was not a disabled person within the meaning of the Act because only of an addiction to alcohol. This was not to be treated as an impairment. She also suffered from depression.
Held: The tribunal should have determined whether the depression constituted an impairment within the meaning of the Act without inquiring into its cause. ‘Further, in our judgment, the employment tribunal erred in its approach, as evidenced in the last sentence of paragraph 24 of its decision. It is not material to a decision as to whether a person is suffering a disability within the meaning of the Act, to consider how the impairment from which they are suffering was caused. What is material is to ascertain whether the disability from which they are suffering at the material time is a disability within the meaning of the Act or whether, where it is relevant as in this case, it is an impairment which is excluded by reason of the Regulations from being treated as such a disability.’

Judges:

Ms Recorder Slade QC

Citations:

EAT/747/01, [2003] IRLR 151, [2002] UKEAT 747 – 01 – 1709

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Power v Panasonic UK Ltd EAT 24-Jan-2002
. .

Cited by:

Followed – Hutchison 3G UK Ltd v Mason EAT 1-Jul-2003
EAT A cocaine addict who suffered from clinical depression claimed discrimination on the ground of disability.
Held: There was expert medical evidence before the employment tribunal which had entitled it to . .
Cited – Council of the City of Manchester v Romano, Samariz CA 1-Jul-2004
The authority sought to evict their tenant on the ground that he was behaving in a way which was a nuisance to neighbours. The tenant was disabled, and claimed discrimination.
Held: In secure tenancies, the authority had to consider the . .
Cited – London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm and Disability Rights Commission CA 25-Jul-2007
The court was asked, whether asked to grant possession against a disabled tenant where the grounds for possession were mandatory. The defendant was a secure tenant with a history of psychiatric disability. He had set out to buy his flat, but the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178225

Swiss Re Life and Health Ltd v A H Kay: EAT 11 Jul 2002

The claimant solicitor had alleged disability discrimination, but several months later applied to amend his claim, to include a claim for unfair dismissal. The respondent appealed permission to do so.
Held: The EAT was being asked to interfere with the exercise of a discretion, and faced a high hurdle. The tribunal should look at what the position would be if the application had been a free standing complaint, but that was not an exclusive requirement. The tribunal had been entitled to treat the words of the original complaint as an implication of a complaint for unfair dismissal. That decision could not be described as perverse.
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal.

Judges:

Mr Recorder Langstaff QC

Citations:

EAT/680/01, [2002] UKEAT 0680 – 01 – 1107

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 111

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Harvey v Port of Tilbury London Ltd EAT 10-Nov-1999
It was correct to refuse to allow an amendment before the tribunal to add another head of claim which would be out of time. The presentation of a new complaint is as time barred as if it had been made separately, although, the fact that proceedings . .
Cited – Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore EAT 2-May-1996
The claimant had been summarily dismissed. His application at first made no mention of a complaint that it had related to his trades union activities. He wrote to the secretary seeking amendment of his claim to include a claim that his dismissal was . .

Cited by:

Cited – Transport and General Workers Union v Safeway Stores Ltd EAT 23-Mar-2007
EAT Practice and Procedure – Amendment

Safeway closed a depot, leading to a large number of redundancies. The Union alleged that consultation was inadequate. Proceedings were initially commenced claiming only . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.175482

NWT Freight Forwarding Ltd v G R Owen: EAT 17 May 2002

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for Dismissal

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Wall

Citations:

EAT/643/01, [2002] UKEAT 0643 – 01 – 1705

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – NWT Freight Forwarding Ltd v Owen EAT 1-Nov-2001
. .

Cited by:

Appeal from – NWT Freight Forwarding Ltd v Owen CA 27-Sep-2002
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.175072

AON Risk Services (Uk) Limited v Edward John Mansell Child-Villiers: CA 26 Jul 2002

The employee claimed commission on the acquisition of a major corporate client. The company claimed that the commission agreement related only to private client work. The company now appealed a finding against it.
Held: The recorder had amended his judgement, which was doubtful as correct. He had awarded the same sum both on a quantum meruit basis, and on an incentive payment basis. This suggested a lack of understanding of the issues. The decision was set aside. The contract and background suggested that he was to introduce private client work, and incentive payments outside that scope did not apply. On a quantum meruit basis he would be entitled to a lesser sum calculated in a similar way to incentives payable to others within the corporate division.

Judges:

Lord Justice Laws, Lord Justice May, Lord Phillips Master of the Rolls

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1118

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract, Employment

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174423

Wilson and NUJ, Palmer, Wyeth and RMT, Doolan and Others v The United Kingdom: ECHR 2 Jul 2002

The appellants were journalists and other workers, and members of trades unions. Their employers had de-recognised the unions, paying sums to buy out those rights. The claimants had not surrendered their rights, and had been paid less because of it.
Held: The Act did not protect the employees rights of association as guaranteed by article 11. The freedom to be a trade union member received special protection. The absence of an obligation on employers to enter into collective bargaining agreements did not infringe the right of free association, but the UK law did allow employers to treat less favourably employees wanting to exercise their rights to be members of trade unions, and that was a breach. Art 11 could not be read to oblige public authorities to provide a legal mechanism to compel an employer to enter into negotiations with a particular trade union.

Judges:

J-P Costa, President and Judges A. Baka, G. Jorundsson, K. Jungwiert, M. Ugrekhelidze, A. Mularoni and Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, ad hoc judge Section Registrar S. Dolle

Citations:

Times 05-Jul-2002, 30668/96, [2002] ECHR 547, 30671/96, Times 05-Jul-2002, [2002] IRLR 568, [2011] ECHR 1654

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 23(1)(a), European Convention on Human Rights 11

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

Cited – Gustafsson v Sweden ECHR 25-Apr-1996
Hudoc No violation of Art. 11; No violation of Art. 6-1; No violation of Art. 13; No violation of P1-1
The right to freedom of association under article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights includes . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (National Union of Journalists) v Central Arbitration Committee Admn 19-Nov-2004
The NUJ appealed refusal of collective negotiating rights with the Daily Mirror, having a majority of the members in the sports division. The paper had previously given exclusive rights to a competing union. At the time of the hearing the competing . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174181

Consignia Plc v Russell Sealy: CA 19 Jun 2002

The complainant was a post office employee. He brought a claim for unfair dismissal, but he posted it at a time when in the normal course of delivery, it would not arrive. He claimed to be unaware of the normal times for delivery.
Held: It was for the claimant to establish that his case fell within the section allowing a tribunal to permit late service. The tribunal could not assume from his employment, levels of knowledge about such matters. Whether a letter would be delivered in the normal course of post was to be assessed objectively, and not subjectively. It is unfortunate that the rules of the employment tribunals had not been brought into line with those applying to litigation under the Civil Procedure Rules. The rule in Godwin did not apply in employment tribunal cases.

Judges:

Lord Justice Brooke

Citations:

Times 03-Jul-2002, Gazette 01-Aug-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 878, [2002] ICR 1193, [2002] Emp LR 983, [2002] IRLR 624, [2002] 3 All ER 801

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 111(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Godwin v Swindon Borough Council CA 10-Oct-2001
The claimant appealed against an order striking out his claim for personal injuries. The claim had been issued in time, but not served. An extension of time was granted, and the notice sent by first class post the day before that period expired. The . .
Appeal from – Consignia (Formerly the Post Office) v Sealy EAT 11-Jun-2001
. .

Cited by:

Cited – NSM Music Ltd v J H Leefe EAT 14-Dec-2005
EAT Practice and Procedure: Appearance/Response, Review and Appellate Jurisdiction/Burns-Barke
When a Respondent has been debarred from taking part in proceedings under ET Rule 9, he may request Reasons . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174008

Schuerer v Council: ECFI 28 Jun 2000

Retirement pension – Weighting – Action for annulment – Inadmissibility.

Citations:

T-338/99, [2000] EUECJ T-338/99

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

See Also – Schuerer v Commission ECJ 24-Nov-1983
(Judgment) Invalidity pension – Revision of a judgment. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.173758

Rasmussen v Commission: ECFI 18 Mar 1997

Officials – Vacancy notice – Annulment of the procedure in progress – Notice of competition – Post reserved for nationals of new Member States – Action for annulment – Admissibility – Articles 4 and 29 of the Staff Regulations – Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations – Principle of legal certainty – Misuse of powers – Action for damages.

Citations:

T-35/96, [1997] EUECJ T-35/96

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Employment

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.173166

Contargyris v Council: ECFI 29 May 1997

Officials – Rejection of application for a post – Article 19(1) of the Council’s rules of procedure – Article 45 of the Staff Regulations – Power of the Secretary-General of the Council to adopt decisions rejecting an application for a post and a complaint – Notive of vacancy – Manifest error of assessment – Articles 7 and 27 of the Staff Regulations – Obligation to provide a statement of reasons – Misuse of powers.

Citations:

[1997] EUECJ T-6/96

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Employment

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.173141

Picciolo and Calo v Committee of Regions: ECFI 18 Mar 1997

Officials – New post with the Committee of the Regions – Vacancy Notice – Rejection of candidatures – Application for annulment – Delay in communicating the rejection decisions – Failure to state reasons – Equality of treatment – Manifest error of assessment.

Citations:

T-178/95, [1997] EUECJ T-178/95

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Employment

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.173088

Rowden v Dutton Gregory Solictors: EAT 17 Dec 2001

EAT Disability Discrimination – Disability
EAT Disability Discrimination – Disability.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (P)

Citations:

EAT/1116/00, [2002] UKEAT 1116 – 00 – 2502, [2002] ICR 971

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995

Citing:

See Also – Rowden v Dutton Gregory Solicitors EAT 1-Mar-2001
Disability Discrimination – Disability. . .

Cited by:

Cited – London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm HL 25-Jun-2008
Unrelated Detriment was no Discrimination
The tenant had left his flat and sublet it so as to allow the landlord authority an apparently unanswerable claim for possession. The authority appealed a finding that they had to take into account the fact that the tenant was disabled and make . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172096

Robert Fletcher (Greenfield) Ltd v Blakeman: EAT 20 Nov 2001

EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Appeal Tribunal

Judges:

His Honour Judge Peter Clark

Citations:

EAT/767/00, [2001] UKEAT 767 – 00 – 2011

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Robert Fletcher (Greenfield) Ltd v Blakeman EAT 12-Jan-2001
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172090

Jayasuriya v Meat Hygiene Service Lincs Turkeys Ltd: EAT 2 Feb 2001

EAT Contract of Employment – Definition of Employee

Judges:

His Honour Judge D Pugsley

Citations:

EAT/525/00, [2001] UKEAT 525 – 00 – 0202

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Cited by:

Appeal from – Jayasuriya v Meat Hygiene Service and Another CA 6-Sep-2001
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172005

Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt: EAT 8 Nov 2001

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason.

Judges:

His Hon Judge J R Reid QC

Citations:

EAT/887/00, [2001] UKEAT 887 – 00 – 2012

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – J Sainsbury Ltd v Hitt; Orse Sainsburys Supermarkets Limited v Hitt CA 18-Oct-2002
Reasobaleness of Investigation Judged Objectively
The employer appealed against a decision that it had unfairly dismissed the respondent. The majority of the Employment Tribunal had decided that the employers had not carried out a reasonable investigation into the employee’s alleged misconduct . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172070

Chaudhary v The Specialist Training Authority of the Medical Royal Colleges and 8 others: EAT 20 Nov 2001

EAT Race Discrimination – Jurisdiction
EAT Race Discrimination – Jurisdiction.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Peter Clark

Citations:

EAT/1410/00, [2001] UKEAT 1410 – 00 – 2011

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Dr H Platt, NHS Executive HQ, Department Of Health v R Chaudhary and Others, R Chaudhary and others EAT 20-Dec-2001
The Authority and other respondents appealed a refusal to strike out the applicant’s claim as an abuse of process, on the basis that other proceedings were current between the same parties at another tribunal. Abuse of process is distinct from cause . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination, Health Professions

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.171606

Mcdonagh (Sued on Her Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Other Members of the Labour Party) v Z Ali H S Sohal: EAT 10 Apr 2000

The applicants were suspended from membership of the Labour party. As a result they were unable to stand for election as councillors. They alleged racial discrimination.
Held: The position as councillor fell within the Act, and the claim for discrimination had been properly allowed. The Act should be interpreted sufficiently widely to provide a remedy for the ill it sought to cure.
EAT Race Discrimination – Jurisdiction

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President)

Citations:

EAT/1386/00, [2001] UKEAT 1386 – 00 – 1004

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Statutes:

Race Relations Act 1976 12

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Mcdonagh (Sued on Her Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Other Members of the Labour Party) v Z Ali H S Sohal EAT 10-Apr-2000
The applicants were suspended from membership of the Labour party. As a result they were unable to stand for election as councillors. They alleged racial discrimination.
Held: The position as councillor fell within the Act, and the claim for . .
Appealed to – Ali and Another v Triesman (McDonagh) CA 7-Feb-2002
The applicants sought selection as candidates for the Labour Party. The respondent asserted that such issues were not ones of employment, and therefore not covered by the Act, and appealed a finding of the EAT against them.
Held: Sawyer was . .
Cited – Tom Sawyer and All Other Members of the Labour Party v R Ahsan EAT 5-May-1999
EAT Race Discrimination – Jurisdiction . .

Cited by:

See Also – Mcdonagh (Sued on Her Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Other Members of the Labour Party) v Z Ali H S Sohal EAT 10-Apr-2000
The applicants were suspended from membership of the Labour party. As a result they were unable to stand for election as councillors. They alleged racial discrimination.
Held: The position as councillor fell within the Act, and the claim for . .
Appeal from – Ali and Another v Triesman (McDonagh) CA 7-Feb-2002
The applicants sought selection as candidates for the Labour Party. The respondent asserted that such issues were not ones of employment, and therefore not covered by the Act, and appealed a finding of the EAT against them.
Held: Sawyer was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.171805

London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham v Farnsworth: EAT 15 Jun 2000

EAT Disability Discrimination – Compensation

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Charles

Citations:

EAT/461/99, [2000] EAT 461 – 99 – 1506, [2000] IRLR 691

Links:

EATn, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham v Farnsworth EAT 30-Jun-1999
. .

Cited by:

Cited – London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm HL 25-Jun-2008
Unrelated Detriment was no Discrimination
The tenant had left his flat and sublet it so as to allow the landlord authority an apparently unanswerable claim for possession. The authority appealed a finding that they had to take into account the fact that the tenant was disabled and make . .
See Also – Desmond A Quinn v Schwarzkopf Ltd EAT 10-Oct-2000
EAT Disability Discrimination – Disability . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.171466

Pendragon Plc T/A Grantham Ford v Bryant: EAT 12 Mar 2001

EAT Unlawful Deduction from Wages –
EAT Unlawful Deduction from Wages – (no sub-topic).

Judges:

Miss Recorder Slade QC

Citations:

EAT/1098/00, [2001] UKEAT 1098 – 00 – 1203

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Citing:

s=See Also – Pendragon Plc (T/A Grantham Ford) v Bryant EAT 9-Nov-2000
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.171572

Moores v Bude-Stratton Town Council: EAT 27 Mar 2000

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason
Lindsay J said: ‘As for determining whether a wrongdoer is on his own business, just as no single test is nowadays seen to be determinative of whether a person is an employee (as opposed, for example, to being self-employed or an independent contractor), so also no one test is determinative of a person being on his own business for the purposes of vicarious liability, very commonly a closely related question. Similar questions arise in both cases: was remuneration paid for the doing of what was done; was what was done, done for the benefit of the party sought vicariously to be made liable (‘the propositus’)? Was the act complained of reasonably incidental to the duties of the wrongdoer as cast upon him by the propositus? Was the propositus in a position of control, not only to order what was to be done but how it was to be done? Was the propositus in a position to select who should do the activity in the course of which the wrongful act occurred? Could the propositus suspend or stop that activity? Was what was done expressly or impliedly authorised by the propositus? Was it an unauthorised way of doing something which was authorised? Was it the performance of an act of a class the wrongdoer was not required to do at all or had been forbidden to do? No single question and answer is likely to be determinative but together the answers should provide a composite from which it can be adjudged whether vicarious liability exists.’

Judges:

Justice Lindsay (President)

Citations:

EAT/313/99, [2000] EAT 313 – 99 – 2703, [2001] ICR 271

Links:

EATn, Bailii

Citing:

See Also – Moores v Bude-Stratton Town Council EAT 13-May-1999
Preliminary hearing in proposed appeal. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Cheltenham Borough Council v Laird QBD 15-Jun-2009
The council sought damages saying that their former chief executive had not disclosed her history of depressive illness when applying for her job.
Held: The replies were not dishonest as the form could have been misconstrued. The claim failed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.171795

Unicorn Consultancy Services Ltd v M C Westbrook and 17 others: EAT 16 Sep 1999

EAT Transfer of Undertakings – Transfer
EAT Transfer of Undertakings – Transfer.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Charles

Citations:

EAT/892/98, [1999] UKEAT 892 – 98 – 1609, [2000] IRLR 80

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Tapere v South London and Maudsley NHS Trust EAT 19-Aug-2009
EAT CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT
Construction of term
The Employment Tribunal erred in construing the terms and conditions of employment as permitting the employer to transfer the employee to another . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.171692

Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council v E Ackinclose and others: EAT 27 May 2002

EAT Unlawful Deduction from Wages
The employees were part time school meals service assistants. Part timers’ rates were adjusted with a move to a base weekly hours from 39 to 37. The service had been out-sourced and then brought back in house. They were two TUPE transfers. The employer suggested that they left on one set of conditions and returned on the other.
Held: The decision was set aside. The tribunal had failed to address questions necessary to decide which set of terms applied.
EAT Unlawful Deduction from Wages – (no sub-topic).

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (P)

Citations:

EAT/330/01, [2002] UKEAT 330 – 01 – 1705

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Ackinclose and others v Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council EAT 20-Sep-2004
EAT Unlawful Deduction from Wages . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.171289

Mohammed v London Borough of Camden: EAT 11 Oct 2001

The claimant sought repayment of sums he claimed were unlawfully deducted from his salary. He had been off sick for an extended period, and had been paid only half salary. He said that the injury was a qualifying industrial accident. Medical evidence suggested it related back to degeneration which started before he had begun to work there. The contract of employment had two schemes for payment of sick pay which fell to be reconciled. In fact the tribunal, in dismissing his claim had correctly judged the schemes, and if they had taken the view of the cause of the injury asserted by the claimant, his rights might well have been reduced.
EAT Contract of Employment – Breach of Contract
EAT Contract of Employment – Breach of Contract.

Judges:

His Honour Judge J R Reid QC

Citations:

EAT/0482/00, [2001] UKEAT 0482 – 00 – 1110

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 13

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168349

Hawwari v British Broadcasting Corporation: EAT 16 Jan 2002

EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Appeal Tribunal.

Judges:

Mr Commissioner Howell QC

Citations:

EAT/0984/01, EAT/0983/01, [2002] UKEAT 0983 – 01 – 1601

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – A Hawwari v British Broadcasting Corporation, G Mclellan EAT 2-Oct-2000
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal . .
See Also – Hawwari v British Broadcasting Corporation and others EAT 15-Sep-1999
. .
See Also – Hawwari v British Broadcasting Corporation and others EAT 18-Oct-1999
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168476

Sommerville-Cotton v Barclays Capital Services Ltd: EAT 25 Jan 2002

EAT Sex Discrimination – Direct

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Wall

Citations:

EAT/372/00, [2002] UKEAT 372 – 00 – 2501

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.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168498