Tag: Employment

Hebden v Forsey and Son: NIRC 1973

The court referred to the test for frustration set down in Marshall and added: ‘This is a test to enable the court to determine whether the incapacity is of such a nature that it strikes at and destroys the root of the contract and thus the relationship of employer and employee, for it is only then that the contract is frustrated.’

Judges:

Sir Hugh Griffiths

Citations:

[1973] ICR 60

Citing:

Cited – Marshall v Harland and Wolff Ltd NIRC 1972
The doctrine of frustration can apply to contracts of employment. The Court looked at the situations in which it should extend time for an appeal to be filed: ‘Was the employee’s incapacity, looked at before the purported dismissal, of such a . .

Cited by:

Cited – James v The Greytree Trust EAT 17-Jan-1996
The tribunal was asked whether, due to incapacity, an employee has been dismissed, or his contract of employment frustrated. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.221579

Johanna Maria Delahaye v Ministre de la Fonction publique et de la Reforme administrative: ECJ 11 Nov 2004

Safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of a transfer of an undertaking to the State – Possibility for the State to impose rules of public law – Reduction of the amount of remuneration.

Citations:

C-425/02

Jurisdiction:

European

European, Employment

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.219611

Hyde v Lehman Brothers Limited: EAT 22 Mar 2004

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

Judges:

The Honourable Mrs Justice Cox

Citations:

UKEAT/0184/04, UKEAT/0121/04

Links:

EATn

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See also – Hyde v Lehman Brothers Ltd EAT 4-Aug-2004
. .
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: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.200531

Printers and Finishers Limited v Holloway: 1965

The court considered the questions arising from the use of information acquired by an employee during his employment after that employment had ended, and noted that information the future use of which will not be restrained is information not readily separable in the mind of the employee from other information which he is free to use, and the actual or threatened misuse of information which has been deliberately memorised for the purpose of its being carried away and used elsewhere will be restrained.
The question was whether the knowledge was ‘a separate part of the employee’s stock of knowledge which a man of ordinary honesty and intelligence would recognise to be the property of his old employer.’ The law would defeat its own object if it sought to enforce standards which would be rejected by the ordinary person.
Cross J said: ‘The employee might well not realise that the feature or expedient in question was in fact peculiar to his late employer’s process and factory; but even if he did, such knowledge is not readily separable from his general knowledge of the flock printing process and his acquired skill in manipulating a flock printing plant, and I do not think that any man of average intelligence and honesty would think that there was anything improper in his putting his memory of particular features of his late employer’s plant at the disposal of his new employer.’ and
‘Although the law will not enforce a covenant directed against competition by an ex-employee, it will enforce a covenant reasonably necessary to protect trade secrets. If the managing director is right in thinking that there are features in the plaintiffs process which can fairly be regarded as trade secrets and which their employees will inevitably carry away with them in their heads, then the proper way for the plaintiffs to protect themselves would be by exacting covenants from their employees restricting their field of activity after they have left their employment, not by asking the court to extend the general equitable doctrine to prevent breaking confidence beyond all reasonable bounds.’

Judges:

Cross J

Citations:

[1965] RPC 239, [1965] 1 WLR 1

Cited by:

Cited – Poeton Industries Ltd and Another v Michael Ikem Horton CA 26-May-2000
The claimant sought damages and an injunction after their former employee set up in business, using, they said, information about their manufacturing procedures and customers obtained whilst employed by them. The defendant appealed the injunction . .
Cited – Faccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler CA 1986
Nature of Confidentiality in Information
The appellant plaintiff company had employed the defendant as sales manager. The contract of employment made no provision restricting use of confidential information. He left to set up in competition. The company now sought to prevent him using . .
Cited – Thomas v Farr Plc and Another CA 20-Feb-2007
The employee, the former chairman of the company, appealed a finding that his contract which restricted his being employed for one year in the same field after termination, was valid and enforceable. The company had provided insurance services to . .
Cited – Napier and Another v Pressdram Ltd CA 19-May-2009
The claimant solicitors appealed against the refusal to grant them an injunction to prevent the publication of the outcome of a complaint against them to the Law society, and of the Ombudsman’s report. They said that the material remained . .
Cited – The Author of A Blog v Times Newspapers Ltd QBD 16-Jun-2009
The claimant, the author of an internet blog (‘Night Jack’), sought an order to restrain the defendant from publishing his identity.
Held: To succeed, the claimant would have to show that there would be a legally enforceable right to maintain . .
Cited – Caterpillar Logistics Services (UK) Ltd v Huesca De Crean QBD 2-Dec-2011
The claimant sought an order to prevent the defendant, a former employee, from misusing its confidential information said to be held by her. Her contract contained no post employment restrictions but did seek to control confidential and other . .
Cited – Littlewoods Organisations Ltd v Harris CA 1977
When construing restrictive covenants in an employment contract, the court should construe the contract in the light of the object and intent of the contract as a whole. It may be read down and need not be read literally. Lord Denning said that it . .
Cited – Bluebell Apparel Ltd v Dickinson SCS 14-Oct-1977
The former employee challenged a restriction on his post employment career.
Held: The restriction was world-wide and as such tooo wide, and unenforceable. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Employment

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.200319

BP Oil Ltd v Richards: EAT 12 Apr 1983

The tribunal considered how to treat a succession of fixed term contracts.
Held: The crucial question was whether one looks at the whole term of the original contract plus extensions as one contract or concentrates solely on the last contractual arrangement made between the parties. He could see no ground for distinguishing Triesman on that point and said: ‘As a matter of comity and in the interests of orderly industrial relations, it is undesirable for us to depart from that decision and therefore we follow it.’

Judges:

Browne-Wilkinson J

Citations:

Unreported, 12 April 1983

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Followed – Open University v Triesman EAT 1978
An employee was employed under a contract for a fixed term of 18 months. 3 months before that period expired she was offered and accepted further employment for 7 months subject to a waiver clause.
Held: The judgments in BBC -v- Ioannou were . .

Cited by:

Cited – British 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: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.198054

Dorothy Perkins Ltd v Dance: 1977

The court considered the difficulties in categorising and comparing employments: ‘Having then identified the parties, having then acquainted themselves with the nature of the contractual employment, the next thing that has to be done is to look at the position in very broad general terms. The old saying that it is sometimes difficult to see the wood because of the trees is particularly applicable in this type of investigation . . look at the wood . . if it sees one tree which is outstandingly different from the rest . . see whether or not . . [they] . . are doing something which may be significantly different.’

Judges:

Kilner Brown J

Citations:

[1977] IRLR 226

Statutes:

Equal Pay Act 1970

Cited by:

Cited – Matthews and others v Kent and Medway Towns Fire Authority and others CA 2-Jul-2004
Part time retained firefighters claimed discrimination under the Regulations when their conditions of service were compared with those of full-time firefighters. They appealed a finding that they had been employed under different types of contract . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.198545

Whitehart v Raymond Thomson Ltd: EAT 11 Sep 1984

A member of the tribunal was said to have dozed off once if not twice during the hearing. Popplewell J said: ‘It is axiomatic that all members of a tribunal must hear all the evidence and to have a trial in which one member of the tribunal is asleep even for a short part of the time, cannot be categorised as a proper trial. Justice does not appear to have been done.’

Judges:

Popplewell J

Citations:

Unreported, 11 September 1984

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Red Bank Manufacturing Co Ltd v Meadows EAT 1992
A party wishing to complain about a member of the employment tribunal should make his complaint to that tribunal rather than at the EAT. The Polkey principle must be considered by the Tribunal in assessing compensation for unfair dismissal even . .
Cited – Stansbury v Datapulse Plc and Another CA 15-Dec-2003
In the course of a hearing in the Employment Tribunal, it appeared to one party that a member of the tribunal was drunk and fell asleep.
Held: Two questions arose. First whether that tribunal should deal with a complaint about a member of the . .
Cited – Stansbury v Datapulse Plc and Another CA 15-Dec-2003
In the course of a hearing in the Employment Tribunal, it appeared to one party that a member of the tribunal was drunk and fell asleep.
Held: Two questions arose. First whether that tribunal should deal with a complaint about a member of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.193402

Perth and Kinross Council v Tony Donaldson and 14 Others Newtown Construction Scotland Ltd Meldru: EAT 30 Oct 2003

EAT Transfer of Undertakings – Acquired rights directive
The European Acquired rights directive sought to protect the rights of employees on the a transfer of a business to another employer. It was transposed into UK law by regulations purportedly made under 2(2) of the 1972 Act. The tribunal held that TUPE applied where the employer became irretrievably insolvent. It was to be considered whether, if TUPE did cover the case, it was to that extent ultra vires, because the Directive did not require the UK to afford that degree of protection in an irretrievable insolvency.
Held: The relevant provision was ultra vires. If it was desired to cover a business in that situation, recourse would have to be had to primary legislation. Lord Johnston: ‘[A] very material question of law arises which does not seem to have been decided authoritatively in the United Kingdom. The broad issue is whether or not, when a European Directive is implemented by subsidiary legislation of the United Kingdom parliament, under section 2 of the Treaty of Rome Act 1972 [sic], can the relevant Regulations be intra vires if the effect of those Regulations brought in by the UK Parliament is to widen the scope of the Directive which it is seeking to implement.’ and ‘The Tribunal focussed on this matter in Addison v. Denholm Ship Management (UK) Ltd [1997] IRLR, commenting critically upon a case R v. Secretary of State for Industry ex parte UNISON [1996] ICR 1003. This Tribunal stated in this context, ‘The child cannot be larger, wider or have great implications than its parent allows. . . Whatever may be the position of a liquidator with regard to the sale of a business as a going concern, when it comes to irretrievable insolvency and cessation of business, we are satisfied that European jurisprudence does not admit the application of the ARD Directive. If it is to be suggested that TUPE has effectively allowed the Directive to operate in that context we consider that if falls foul of the approach that we adopted in Addison to the effect that it is going beyond the scope of the Directive and would in that respect be ultra vires. The issue requires to be addressed by primary legislation.’ Although the Directive did not apply to a case of irretrievable insolvency and cessation of business, neither did it prevent a member state from providing employment protection in such circumstances if it so desired.

Judges:

The Honourable Lord Johnston

Citations:

EATS/0031/03

Statutes:

European Communities Act 1972 2(2)

Cited by:

Cited – Oakley Inc v Animal Ltd and others PatC 17-Feb-2005
A design for sunglasses was challenged for prior publication. However the law in England differed from that apparently imposed from Europe as to the existence of a 12 month period of grace before applying for registration.
Held: Instruments . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.188427

Bank Voor Handel En Scheepvaart NV v Slatford: 1951

A Dutch bank deposited a quantity of gold in London before the start of the 1939-1945 war. In May 1940 the Netherlands were invaded and they became an enemy territory for the purposes of the 1939 Act. The Royal Netherlands Government, with the approval of the UK Government, exercised their powers from London and in May 1940 they issued a decree which purported to have the effect of transferring property, including the gold, to the Netherlands Government (the A.1 decree). In July 1940, the Board of Trade made a vesting order transferring the gold to the Custodian of Enemy Property. He sold it for andpound;2 million. In May 1950 the Netherlands Government made an order returning the property in the gold to the Bank. The Bank then claimed against the Custodian in conversion for the present value of the gold. Devlin J held that the A.1 decree was ineffective to transfer moveable property in this country.
Held:
Devlin J said: ‘I think it is convenient to begin by considering what is the general principle of our law with regard to foreign legislation affecting property within our territory. There is little doubt that it is the lex situs which as a general rule governs the transfer of movables when effected contractually. The maxim mobilia sequuntur personam is the exception rather than the rule, and is probably to be confined to certain special classes of general assignments such as marriage settlements and devolutions on death and bankruptcy. Upon this basis the A.1 decree, not being a part of English law, would not transfer the property in this case. But decrees of this character have received in the authorities rather different treatment. Although there is not, as far as I am aware, any authority which distinguishes general legislation, such as part of a civil code, from ad hoc decrees, the effectiveness of such decrees does not appear on the authorities to be determined exclusively by the application of the lex situs. Apart from two recent cases on which the plaintiffs greatly rely, there has been no case in which such a decree has been enforced in this country, but the grounds for refusing effect to them have been variously put. Sometimes it is said that the decree is confiscatory. In the textbooks it is said sometimes that as a matter of public international law no State ought to seek to exercise sovereignty over property outside its own territory, and therefore the principle of comity is against enforcement; and sometimes it is said that the principle of effectiveness is against enforcement, since no State can expect to make its laws effective in the territory of another State. Dicey, Conflict of Laws, 6th ed., p. 13, states: ‘A State’s authority, in the eyes of other States and the courts that represent them, is, speaking very generally, coincident with, and limited by, its power. It is territorial. It may legislate for, and give judgments affecting, things and persons within its territory. It has no authority to legislate for, or adjudicate upon, things or persons not within its territory.’
Denning LJ said: ‘In this connection I would observe that the test of being a servant does not rest nowadays on submission to orders. It depends on whether the person is part and parcel of the organisation.’

Judges:

Devlin J, Denning LJ

Citations:

[1953] 1 QB 248, [1951] 2 TLR 755, [1951] 2 All ER 779

Statutes:

Trading With The Enemy Act 1939

Cited by:

Cited – Peer International Corporation Southern Music Publishing Company Inc Peermusic (UK) Limited v Termidor Music Publishers Limited Termidor Musikverlag Gmbh and Co Kg -And-Editoria Musical De Cuba CA 30-Jul-2003
Peer sought declarations that they were the owners, or licensees, of the UK copyright in musical works composed by Cuban nationals, relying on assignments in writing by the composers and in some instances by their heirs. The defendants claimed under . .
Cited – Ready 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.

Jurisdiction, Employment

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.186123

London Underground Ltd v Ferenc-Batchelor; Harding v London Underground Ltd: EAT 10 Jul 2003

The employees argued that they should be allowed to be accompanied by a representative to a meeting where they might receive an oral warning.
Held: A disciplinary warning becomes a formal warning within the section where it is recordable as part of the employees formal disciplinary record.

Citations:

Gazette 10-Jul-2003, [2003] IRLR 252, [2003] ICR 656

Statutes:

Employment Relations Act 1999 13(4)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Refreshment Systems Ltd t/a Northern Vending Services v Wolsetnholme EAT 27-Oct-2003
The claimant had brought an action uunder the section with respect to his right to be accompanied at a disciplinary hearing. The employer lodged an appeal.
Held: The jurisdiction of the EAT was purely statutory. The powers to hear appeals were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.184718

Ultraframe UK Limited v Clayton, Fielding and Others: ChD 3 Oct 2002

The claimants asserted infringement of their registered design rights in parts used in their double glazing and conservatory units. ‘Therefore it is possible for design right to subsist in the design of the part of the article which is not excluded under the must match provisions.’

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Laddie

Citations:

[2003] RPC 435

Statutes:

Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 213(6) 215

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Montgomery v Johnson Underwood Ltd CA 9-Mar-2001
A worker who had strictly been employed by an agency but on a long term placement at a customer, claimed to have been unfairly dismissed by the customer when that placement ended.
Held: To see whether she was an employee the tribunal should . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Bottrill CA 12-Feb-1999
There is no rule of law, to suggest that a sole director and owner of majority of shareholding, could not be an employee of that company, and be entitled to a redundancy payment on the liquidation of the company. ‘If the tribunal considers that the . .
Cited – Trussed Steel Concrete Ltd v Green 1946
A company director required to work full time for the company in return for a salary may be an employee: ‘… the question I have to consider is . . whether a managing director serving under a contract such as that by which Mr Green is bound is a . .
Cited – Anderson v James Sutherland (Peterhead) Ltd 1941
The court discussed the authorities on the question of whether a managing director of a company was an employee or contractor. ‘Each of the decisions was given in cases where the context played a vital part in the conclusions arrived at.’ . .
Cited – British Leyland Motor Corporation Ltd v Armstrong Patents Co Ltd HL 1986
The claimant’s product was made from drawings. The drawings were protected as copyright artistic works. They were reproduced in a three dimensional form by the claimant’s own products. Someone who copied the claimant’s products indirectly copied the . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Bottrill EAT 28-May-1998
There is no rule of law to suggest that a sole director and owner of majority of shareholding could not be an employee and entitled to redundancy payment on the liquidation of the company. ‘The higher courts have taken the view that the issue as to . .
Cited – Lakeview Computers Plc v Steadman 26-Nov-1999
. .

Cited by:

Cited – A Fulton Company Limited v Totes Isotoner (UK) Limited CA 4-Nov-2003
The defendants appealed a finding that they had infringed the claimant’s unregistered design rights in collapsible umbrellas. The defendants said the law protected only the design as a whole, and that only part had been copied.
Held: Authority . .
Appeal from – Ultraframe UK Limited v Clayton, Fielding and Others CA 12-Dec-2003
The company was 100% owned by its designer. He purported to retain the design right.
Held: The designer held the rights in trust for the company. An assignment by a shareholder holding all the shares in a company was possible, but not when the . .
See Also – Ultraframe UK Ltd v Clayton and others ChD 14-Feb-2003
Laddie J said: ‘I have to resolve a dispute between the parties on the issue of costs following on from the determination of the preliminary issues ordered to be heard by His Honour Judge Behrens. It is difficult to summarise the complex . .
See Also – Ultraframe UK Ltd v Fielding and others ChD 12-Jan-2004
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Employment

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.178499

Harada Ltd T/A Chequepoint UK Ltd v Turner: EAT 2 Nov 1999

EAT Jurisdiction –

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President)

Citations:

EAT/517/99, EAT/516/99

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. . .

Cited by:

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 . .
See Also – Harada Ltd (T/A Chequepoint Uk) v Turner EAT 25-Feb-2003
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal. . .
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: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.171423

B Hedden v Exeter Diocesan Board for Christian Care: EAT 9 Mar 2000

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for Dismissal

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Charles

Citations:

EAT/125/97

Citing:

Cited – Aiden Shipping Co Ltd v Interbulk Ltd (The ‘Vimeira’) HL 1986
Wide Application of Costs Against Third Party
A claim had been made against charterers by the ship owners, and in turn by the charterers against their sub-charterers. Notice of motion were issued after arbitration awards were not accepted. When heard, costs awards were made, which were now . .
See Also – Hedden v Exeter Diocesan Board for Christian Care EAT 26-Jun-1998
. .
See Also – Hedden v Exeter Diocesan Board for Christian Care CA 17-Feb-1999
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Costs

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.171769

Gould v The Governors of Haileybury and Imperial Services College and others: EAT 19 Jul 2002

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Compensation

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (P)

Citations:

EAT/1191/00, EAT/635/00

Citing:

See Also – Lambrook Haileybury School v Gould EAT 1-Dec-1998
. .
See Also – Gould v Lambrook Haileybury School EAT 5-Jul-1999
. .
See Also – Gould v Lambrook Haileybury School EAT 28-Jul-1999
. .
See Also – Gould v Haileybury and Imperial Service College and Another EAT 6-Jun-2001
. .
Cited – Gould v Haileybury and Imperial Service College and Another EAT 6-Jun-2001
. .
Cited – Gould v Haileybury and Imperial Service College and Another EAT 6-Jun-2001
. .
Cited – Gould v Haileybury and Imperial Service College and Another EAT 6-Jun-2001
. .
Cited – Gould v Haileybury and Imperial Service College and Another EAT 6-Jun-2001
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.174758

Foy As Chairperson of the Committee of Weaver Community Playgroup v K Brzezicki: EAT 8 May 2001

The appellant had dismissed the respondent. She was given notice, but the tribunal found an agreement that she need not work her notice, and would be given pay in lieu, and that that agreement waived any breach of contract by the employee.
Held: The decision was supported by evidence, and no error identified.
EAT Contract of Employment – Breach of Contract

Judges:

Mrs Recorder Cox QC

Citations:

EAT/355/00

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.168187

Comitu Central d’Entreprise de la SA Vittel and Comitu d’Etablissement de Pierval v Commission of the European Communities: ECFI 6 Jul 1993

ECFI Where the effect of suspending the operation of a Commission decision authorizing, at the request of employees’ representative bodies in some of the undertakings concerned, a concentration between undertakings pursuant to Regulation No 4064/89 would be to suspend the authorization granted throughout the course of the proceedings before the Court, and where the effect of granting the interim measures applied for in the alternative would be to prolong the existence of a dominant position liable to have irreversible repercussions on competition in the sector concerned, it is incumbent on the judge hearing the application for interim measures to weigh all the interests involved. Accordingly, not only must the interests of the applicants be balanced against the Commission’ s interest in restoring effective competition but regard must also be had to the interests of third parties, in particular the undertakings concerned, so as to avoid both the creation of an irreversible situation and serious and irreparable damage to one of the parties to the proceedings or to a third party or else to the public interest. In circumstances such as those, there is no justification for granting the measures sought unless it appears that the employees represented by the applicants would otherwise be exposed to a situation jeopardizing their future position. In this case, the decision at issue cannot, in principle, have repercussions on the rights of the employees of the undertakings concerned and there is no risk of direct damage to them such as to justify the grant of interim measures. As regards the damage which the employees of the transferor allege would result from the fact that, in their view, the transfer runs counter to their right to maintenance of the assets of the undertaking, the applicants, merely referring to the minimal amount of the financial consideration given for the transfer, have not shown how a decrease in the assets of that undertaking would be liable, at first sight, to entail a risk of serious and irreparable damage regarding the maintenance of employment within the undertaking. In any event, it is common ground that the transfer price derives not from the Commission decision but from the negotiations undertaken by the undertakings concerned. As regards the damage that the employees of the undertaking to be transferred allege they would suffer by ceasing to enjoy the social advantages conferred on them either by their individual contracts or by the collective agreement in force in the transferor undertaking, Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 77/187/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings provide that a transferor’s rights and obligations arising from a contract of employment or from an employment relationship are transferred to the transferee. Moreover, under the applicable domestic employment legislation, any collective employment agreement of indefinite duration may be repudiated by the parties to it under the conditions laid down therein. It follows that, even if the alleged damage appears sufficiently certain, it cannot be a direct result of the Commission decision. Just as the decision does not require the new employers to call in question the collective agreement applicable to the employees of the undertaking transferred, suspension of its transfer would not provide any protection against the possibility of repudiation of the collective agreement in force.

Citations:

T-12/93

Cited by:

See Also – CCE Vittel and others v Commission ECFI 27-Apr-1995
ECJ Competition – Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 – Decision declaring a concentration compatible with the common market – Action for annulment – Admissibility – Trade unions and works councils – Act of direct and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Employment

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.172641

Chapman v Letheby and Christopher Ltd: 1981

Date of termination of employment – employer required to show that the notice was clearly to the particular effect asserted by him.

Citations:

[1981] IRLR 440

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Adams v GKN Sankey Ltd EAT 1980
The employee had been given twelve weeks notice of redundancy dismissal, and was not required to attend work during the notice period, but then worked additional days. A letter was written in November stating ‘you are given 12 weeks’ notice of . .

Cited by:

Cited – Tallon v Manchester TEC Ltd EAT 18-Jan-1996
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.614996

TBA Industrial Products Limited v Moreland: CA 1981

Effective date of termination of employment. M had been told by letter that his Employment would finish on August the 2nd 1980, when he would receive a payment in lieu of notice then unexpired, and that, if he wished to leave before August 2nd, he should complete the enclosed form. M did complete the form, saying that he wished to leave earlier on the 7th of June. That request was agreed.
Held: The court did not accept the company’s appeal from the tribunal decision. The date of termination was the 2nd of August. Although he had left early, he had received pay for the period of the original notice, and nothing in these events had altered the notice as given.

Citations:

[1982] IRLR 331

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Wedgewood v Minstergate Hull Ltd EAT 13-Jul-2010
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Worker, employee or neither
The Claimant employee was given notice that his contract would expire on 1 December 2008.
By a letter dated 26 November 2008 the Respondent . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.614997

Lupetti v Wrens Old House Ltd: EAT 1984

The applicant was given notice on 3rd February 1983 terminating his employment on 28th February 1983. The question arose on appeal whether the date of the notice or the date when he left employment was the relevant date.
Held: With a discriminatory dismissal, time does not run until the notice of dismissal has expired and the employment ceased: ‘ The act complained of here is the dismissal of the applicant and the short point is: for the purposes of the Race Relations Act 1976, did that dismissal occur on 3 February, when notice was given, or 28 February, when the employment was terminated? We have been referred, in this context, to Dedman v. British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd. [1974] I.C.R. 53, which dealt with the effective date of termination of a contract, and we find that decision and, indeed, definitions which occur in the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 of no help to us in this case, because Dedman’s case is dealing with a different section, and the definitions in the Act of 1978 cover matters on which the Race Relations Act 1976 is silent. It appears to us that we have to approach the construction of the Act of 1976 by considering what was the mischief that Parliament was intending to cover by providing that it was unlawful to discriminate against an employee by dismissing him.
Putting it quite shortly, it seems to us that the mischief which Parliament was intending to cover by those provisions was that of a person finding himself out of a job because of racial or other discriminatory grounds. If that be right (and it appears to us that it is), then the act complained of is the termination of employment and accordingly the effective date for considering when time starts to run is the date when the man finds himself out of job rather than the date when he is given notice.’
Balcombe LJ said: ‘That is sufficient to dispose of this appeal but, in case it goes elsewhere and in order to give proper respect to the able arguments which were presented to us by both counsel in this case, it is right that we should deal with the two other grounds of appeal. The second ground of appeal was that section 68(7)(b) of the Act of 1976 provides that any act extending over a period should be treated as done at the end of that period. Mr Cofie, for the applicant, argues that the act of dismissal extended over the period between the giving of notice and the date when the notice expired. Accordingly, under that subsection, it should be treated as having occurred at the end of the period.
We accept Mr Jeremy’s submissions on that ground of appeal both that it is inconsistent with the earlier argument which we have accepted – although that does not of itself render the earlier argument the less effective – but secondly this was not an act done over a period. It was an act of dismissal. Either that act took place when the notice was given or, as we have held, when the employment terminated. So we reject that ground of appeal.’

Judges:

Balcombe LJ

Citations:

[1984] ICR 348

Statutes:

Race Relations Act 1976 68(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.616315

Redbridge London Borough Council v Fishman: EAT 1978

Unfair and wrongful dismissal are separate and distinct causes of action. Phillips J said: ‘The jurisdiction based on paragraph 6 (8) of Schedule 1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 has not got much to do with contractual rights and duties. Many dismissals are unfair although the employer is contractually entitled to dismiss the employee. Contrariwise, some dismissals are not unfair although the employer was not contractually entitled to dismiss the employee. Although the contractual rights and duties are not irrelevant to the question posed by paragraph 6(8), they are not of the first importance.’

Judges:

Phillips J

Citations:

[1978] ICR 569

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Reilly v Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council SC 14-Mar-2018
Burchell case remains good law
The appellant head teacher had been dismissed for failing to disclose the fact that her partner had been convicted of a sex offence. She now appealed from rejection of her claim for unfair dismissal.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The . .
Adopted – Weston Recovery Services v Fisher EAT 7-Oct-2010
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal
CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Wrongful dismissal
Employment Tribunal found Claimant guilty of serious misconduct for which dismissal fell within the range . .
Cited – Reilly v Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council SC 14-Mar-2018
Burchell case remains good law
The appellant head teacher had been dismissed for failing to disclose the fact that her partner had been convicted of a sex offence. She now appealed from rejection of her claim for unfair dismissal.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.606351

Sir Robert Wayland’s Case: 1795

Holt CJ said: ‘the master at his peril ought to take care what servant he employs; and it is more reasonable that he should suffer for the cheats of his servant than strangers and tradesmen’.

Judges:

Holt CJ

Citations:

[1795] EngR 3131, (1795) 3 Salk 234, (1795) 91 ER 797 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc SC 2-Mar-2016
The claimant had been assaulted and racially abused as he left a kiosk at the respondent’s petrol station by a member of staff. A manager had tried to dissuade the assailant, and the claim for damages against the supermarket had failed at first . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Vicarious Liability, Employment

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.355476

The Queen v The Inhabitants of Braintree: 8 Nov 1858

The appellants against an order of removal set up a settlement of the pauper by apprenticeship under an indenture, which had been lost. To prove proper search, they proposed to ask certain witnesses what inquiries they had made of, and what answers they had received from, parties who were likely to have the document in their possession : but the parties themselves were not called. The Sessions refused to allow the questions to he put. Held, that the evidence was admissible, upon the preliminary inquiry whether proper search had been made, though it might not be admissible as evidence iri the main issue before the Court : arid the appeal was setit back to be reheard.

Citations:

[1858] EngR 1096, (1858) 1 El and El 51, (1858) 120 ER 827

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.289567

Sogbetun v Hackney London Borough Council: EAT 9 Oct 1998

Where the parties to an industrial tribunal application had consented to the matter being dealt with by a chairman sitting alone and disputes of fact looked as if they might arise, the chairman should refer the matter to a full tribunal for hearing.

Citations:

Times 09-Oct-1998, Times 28-Oct-1998

Statutes:

Industrial Tribunals Act 1996 4(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.89389

Smith v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry: EAT 15 Oct 1999

The claimant had been sole director of a company which went into liquidation. He sought a redundancy payment from the respondent under the 1996 Act. It was refused. The tribunal had applied Buchan. It had refused to hear an argument that the tribunal chairman was also employed by the respondent and could not therefore be independent.
Held: Although the Human Rights Act was not yet in force, when looking at a case which would be reheard after it has come into effect, it is right to allow for the Act. Article 6 of the Convention allows a fair trial, yet in this case, the bankrupt’s representative, and the tribunal hearing his case were both indirectly employees of the respondent. As a bankrupt, the claimant’s affairs were managed by the Official Reciver, again an employee of the respondent. The appellant should have been given chance to argue the point before the tribunal. In any event that fact that the claimant was a controlling shareholder did not of itself disqualify him from being an employee and entitled to a redindancy payment. His appeal was allowed.

Judges:

Morison J

Citations:

Times 15-Oct-1999, Gazette 10-Nov-1999

Statutes:

Human Rights Act 1998, European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 6.1, Employment Rights Act 1996 166

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Buchan and Ivey v Secretary of State for Employment EAT 20-Jun-1996
. .
See Also – Smith v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry EAT 13-Oct-1997
. .
Cited – Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Bottrill CA 12-Feb-1999
There is no rule of law, to suggest that a sole director and owner of majority of shareholding, could not be an employee of that company, and be entitled to a redundancy payment on the liquidation of the company. ‘If the tribunal considers that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Insolvency, Employment

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.89343

Powdrill and Another v Watson and Another: HL 23 Mar 1995

A receiver of a companies assets, who employed former staff of the company, beyond an initial period of 14 days, becomes personally responsible for their employment contracts, and consequently becomes liable for making redundancy payments. The 1870 Act could be used to determine arrears of salary attributable to the period prior to the administrators’ appointment.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson said: ‘This ‘rescue culture’ which seeks to preserve viable businesses was and is fundamental to much of the Act of 1986. Its significance in the present case is that, given the importance attached to receivers and administrators being able to continue to run a business, it is unlikely that Parliament would have intended to produce a regime as to employees’ rights which renders any attempt at such rescue either extremely hazardous or impossible.’

Judges:

Lord Browne-Wilkinson

Citations:

Independent 23-Mar-1995, Gazette 03-May-1995, Times 23-Mar-1995, [1995] 2 AC 394

Statutes:

Insolvency Act 1986 19 44, Apportionment Act 1870 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Powdrill and Another v Watson and Another CA 1-Mar-1994
The administrators of a company are deemed to have accepted the employees who had been kept on after 14 days. A letter from them denying that they would accept them as employees, was insufficient to prevent adoption of the contracts. . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Powdrill and Another v Watson and Another CA 1-Mar-1994
The administrators of a company are deemed to have accepted the employees who had been kept on after 14 days. A letter from them denying that they would accept them as employees, was insufficient to prevent adoption of the contracts. . .
Cited – Fassihim, Liddiardrams, International Ltd, Isograph Ltd v Item Software (UK) Ltd CA 30-Sep-2004
The first defendant (F) had been employed by a company involved in a distribution agreement. He had sought to set up a competing arrangement whilst a director of the claimant, and diverted a contract to his new company.
Held: A company . .
Cited – Krasner v McMath; in Re Huddersfield Fine Worsteds Limited CA 12-Aug-2005
The administrators had adopted the contracts of certain employees, who now claimed that the protective awards should have priority to the expenses of the administration.
Held: The payments did fall within paragraph 99(5) and do not have . .
Cited – Freakley and others v Centre Reinsurance International Company and others HL 11-Oct-2006
When it became clear that the company would be financially overwhelmed by asbestos related claims, a voluntary scheme of arrangement was proposed under s425. The House was now asked whether the right to re-imbursement of the company’s lawyers after . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Insolvency

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.84826

Goodwin 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 impaired. ‘The tribunal should bear in mind that with social legislation of this kind, a purposive approach to construction should be adopted. The language should be construed in a way which gives effect to the stated or presumed intention of Parliament, but with due regard to the ordinary and natural meaning of the words in question. ‘ and ‘the tribunal must consider whether the adverse effect is substantial. This is a word which is potentially ambiguous. ‘Substantial’ might mean ‘very large’ or it might mean ‘more than minor or trivial’. Reference to the Guide shows that the word has been used in the latter sense’ and ‘The Tribunal will wish to examine how the applicant’s abilities had actually been effected at the material time, whilst on medication, and then to address their minds to 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 applicant’s abilities to carry out normal day to day activities is clearly more than trivial.’

Judges:

Morison P

Citations:

Times 03-Feb-1999, [1999] IRLR 4, [1999] ICR 302

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See also – 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 . .

Cited by:

Cited – Rugamel v Sony Music Entertainment UK Ltd; McNicol v Balfour Beatty Rail Maintenance Ltd EAT 28-Aug-2001
Both cases questioned the extent, as a disability, of functional or psychological ‘overlay’, where there may be no medical condition underlying the symptoms which the employee claims to be present. Neither claimant had asserted any psychological . .
See also – 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 . .
Cited – 1 Pump Court Chambers v Horton EAT 2-Dec-2003
The chambers appealed a finding of discrimination, saying that a pupil was not a member of the set so as to qualify under the Act.
Held: The barristers set or chambers was a trade organisation, but the position of a pupil barrister was not . .
Cited – Murphy 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 . .
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 – A McKenzie v East Sussex County Council EAT 13-Dec-1999
EAT Disability Discrimination – Disability
The parties sought to settle the appeal by consent. The Tribunal was obliged to consider the merits before making an order. In this case the order requested was . .
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 . .
Cited – Abadeh v British Telecommunications Plc EAT 19-Oct-2000
EAT The claimant appealed dismissal of his claim under the 1995 Act. He was a telephone operator injured after a sudden shriek in his ear. They had found him not to be disabled within the 1995 Act.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.80924

Connor v Secretary of State for Scotland: OHCS 22 Mar 2000

A prison governor sent out a warder with two violent prisoners where it was policy not to bring such prisoners together. The warder suffered injury as a result. There could be no breach of statutory duty where the governor exercised a discretion given to him as to how a statutory function was to be fulfilled. Nevertheless he might be liable in negligence.

Citations:

Times 22-Mar-2000

Employment, Health and Safety, Negligence

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.79455

Credit Suisse First Boston (Europe) Ltd v Padiachy and Others: QBD 16 Jul 1998

Contrary position resulting from European judgement was inescapable. Better terms of employment imposed on an employee after transfer of undertaking were not enforceable against the employee.

Citations:

Times 16-Jul-1998

Statutes:

Acquired Rights Directive 77/187/EEC

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.79617

Chorion Plc and Others v Lane: ChD 7 Apr 1999

A former executive director brought a claim for unfair dismissal in the Employment Tribunal. Chorion brought proceedings in the Chancery Division alleging wrongful acts committed by him while he was a senior executive.
Held: There was an overlap in the issues to be tried in both sets of proceedings, and it was wrong to have two tribunals investigating what are essentially the same facts. In case of an overlap between issues before an Industrial Tribunal and the High Court, the Tribunal matter should be stayed pending the outcome of the other case. Laddie J reached his conclusion that such an Order should be granted because: ‘it would be wrong for essentially the same serious issues to be run in two separate tribunals . . I have come to the conclusion, notwithstanding the powerful arguments advanced by Mr Collins, it would be wrong for essentially the same issues to be run in two separate tribunals. It seems to me that in view of the allegations of dishonesty which are to be found permeating the whole of this dispute it is right and proper that the issues should be determined in one set of proceedings. I am of the view that the preferable forum is the High Court.’

Judges:

Laddie J

Citations:

Times 07-Apr-1999, Gazette 26-May-1999, CH-1999 00233

Cited by:

Cited – Clyde and Co Llp and Another v Winkelhof QBD 22-Mar-2011
The claimant firm of solicitors sought an order requiring the defendant to amend her employment tribunal claim so as to accord with the partnership agreement to which she was party, and to submit to arbitration. The defendant said that statutory . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Litigation Practice

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.79110

Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council v Bainbridge and others: EAT 16 Oct 2006

EAT Equal pay in the North East. Women whose jobs had been rated as equivalent with comparator men (and in some cases had been rated higher) were paid less because of the effect of bonuses and other extra payments known as attendance allowances and wet weather payments. Disparate impact was conceded and indeed, in the case of a number of claimants who submitted their claims before a particular date, it was conceded that they were entitled to the bonuses. However, for claims submitted after that date the employers claimed that the difference in pay was objectively justified because it resulted from productivity schemes which conferred real efficiency savings on the Council and were largely self financing. The Tribunal held in some cases the bonuses no longer reflected any genuine incentive bonus scheme, and even with respect to the group of workers where they did, namely refuse collectors, the extra bonus was not justified because it would have been possible to construct a different kind of bonus scheme for the claimants, albeit not one which made any relevant cost savings. It was conceded by the employer that where the claimants could have been subject to a similar productivity scheme, then the bonus payments could not be justified. The Tribunal therefore had to consider whether this would have been possible. They found that although in some cases analogous productivity schemes could not have been constructed, in a number of other cases there was no evidence before them to suggest that they could not, and since the burden was on the employer, these cases succeeded. The Tribunal also held that the attendance allowances were not justified but that the wet weather payments were justifiably paid only to those who worked in inclement weather. They also held that claimants could legitimately compare themselves with a comparator rated lower in the job evaluation scheme.
The claims related to a period pre April 2004. Since that date a new job evaluation scheme has been entered into. This provided pay protection (red circling) for those whose pay was adversely affected as a consequence. The claimants contended that if their claims succeeded (and some had been conceded) then they should also be given the benefit of pay protection on the basis that although they were not in fact in receipt of the higher pay, they ought to have been had they been given equal pay. Accordingly they contended that the employers could not rely upon a genuine material factor defence under s.1(3) of the Equal Pay Act because the factor relied upon was not a material factor ‘other than sex’ within the meaning of that section. It was sex tainted. The employers contended that the historic sex discrimination was irrelevant. The purpose of pay protection was to cushion employees from the practical consequences of having to move towards lower pay; if they had not in fact been in receipt of that pay, and adjusted their financial arrangements accordingly, it was wholly reasonable that they did not qualify for the payment. The Employment Tribunal found against the Council.
EAT
There were various appeals and cross appeals. The Council appealed the finding that there was no objective justification with respect to the refuse workers; that comparison could be made with those rated lower; that there was no evidence that bonus incentive schemes could not have been introduced for certain of the claimant groups; and the conclusion that the claimants should receive the protected pay which would have been available to them had they been paid their legal entitlement at the relevant time. The claimants cross appealed certain detailed findings relevant to particular claimants, principally on perversity grounds.
The EAT upheld two of the grounds of appeal. They held that the Tribunal had erred in finding that the fact that some other non-incentive based bonus scheme could have been introduced for some claimants defeated the council’s GMF defence with respect to those claimants; and that the Tribunal was wrong to say that there was no evidence relating to the issue whether some of the claimant groups could or could not be subject to a productivity scheme. The other grounds of appeal, and the grounds raised in the cross appeal, were all dismissed.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Elias (President)

Citations:

[2006] UKEAT 0135 – 06 – 1610, UKEAT/0135/06

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council v Bainbridge and others EAT 15-Nov-2006
. .
See Also – Bainbridge and others, Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council, Williams and others EAT 31-Jan-2007
EAT Practice and Procedure – Compromise. . .
See Also – Bainbridge and others v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council EAT 23-Mar-2007
EAT Practice and Procedure – Compromise
Equal Pay Act – Work rated equivalent; Damages/Compensation
This case raises three issues, two of which are of particular significance in the field of equal . .
See Also – Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council v Bainbridge and others CA 21-Sep-2007
The council appealed against a finding of discrimination under the 1970 Act, saying it was impermissible to use as a comparator somebody found after a job evaluation study to be of a different, but lower grade, but with higher pay.
Held: The . .
See Also – Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council v Bainbridge and others (‘Bainbridge 1’) CA 29-Jul-2008
Pay protection provisions are commonly adopted, and provided any differential in pay does not continue for too long, they may justify what would otherwise be unlawful indirect discrimination. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.247827

Inman v Ackroyd: 1901

In the absence of some custom as to the method of payment a Director’s salary would not be payable until the years service was completed, which necessarily would require that it be paid outside the period of the year in which it was earned

Citations:

[1901] 1 QB 613

Statutes:

Apportionment Act 1870

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Fassihim, Liddiardrams, International Ltd, Isograph Ltd v Item Software (UK) Ltd CA 30-Sep-2004
The first defendant (F) had been employed by a company involved in a distribution agreement. He had sought to set up a competing arrangement whilst a director of the claimant, and diverted a contract to his new company.
Held: A company . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.215869

National Westminster Bank Plc v Parry: EAT 5 Feb 2004

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for dismissal

Judges:

His Hon Judge J R Reid QC

Citations:

UKEAT/977/03

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – Parry – National Westminster Bank plc CA 1-Nov-2004
The employee had been found to be unfairly dismissed. The company did not re-engage him, and he sought as part of his damages, the lost earnings up to the date of the hearing. The employer said these should be included within the overall damages . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Parry – National Westminster Bank plc CA 1-Nov-2004
The employee had been found to be unfairly dismissed. The company did not re-engage him, and he sought as part of his damages, the lost earnings up to the date of the hearing. The employer said these should be included within the overall damages . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.196047

Mears v Safecar Security Ltd: CA 2 Jan 1981

There is generally a presumption that sick pay will be paid. A term would be implied if the contract was silent on the point. In implying terms into a contract of employment (the terms in that case relating to sick pay) courts and tribunals were not bound by the traditional tests relating to commercial contracts, but should consider all the facts and evidence in each case, including the way in which the particular contract of employment had worked in practice, and the way the parties had behaved, since it was made.

Judges:

Stephenson LJ

Citations:

[1983] 2 QB 54, [1981] ICR 409, [1982] IRLR 183

Statutes:

Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Mears v Safecar Security Ltd EAT 1981
Slynn P summarised the case law on implying terms into employment contracts: ‘In our judgment the proper approach is to look at all the facts and the circumstances to see whether a term is to be implied that wages shall or shall not be paid during . .

Cited by:

Cited – Brook Street Bureau (UK) Ltd v Dacas CA 5-Mar-2004
The applicant cleaner sought compensation for unfair dismissal. The issue was whether she was an employee of the respondents, of their client where she did her work, or was not an employee at all. She worked for an agency, who sent her out to . .
Cited – Lindsey Beveridge v KLM UK Ltd EAT 16-Feb-2000
EAT The claimant appealed refusal of her claim for unlawful deduction. She had been off sick long term. Her doctor certified her fit to return, and she asked to return, but her employer waited a further six weeks . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.194300

Butcher v The Salvage Association: EAT 20 Dec 2002

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Contributory fault

Judges:

His Hon Judge J Burke QC

Citations:

EAT/988/01

Links:

EAT

Citing:

See Also – Butcher v Salvage Association EAT 21-Jan-2002
. .
See Also – Butcher v Salvage Association CA 31-May-2002
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Butcher v The Salvage Association EAT 2-Jul-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.185539

Governors of Warwick Park School v Hazelhurst: CA 2001

‘In my judgment the Employment Appeal Tribunal were correct to hold that there was an error of law in the decision of the Employment Tribunal as identified by the Employment Appeal Tribunal. In a situation in which it is expressly found that there was no deliberate or conscious racial discrimination, it is necessary, before drawing the inference sought to be drawn, to set out the facts relied on and the process by which the inference is drawn. In some cases that process of reasoning need only be brief; in other cases more detailed reasoning will be required. The Employment Appeal Tribunal approached the matter in this way: ‘… we do suggest that the less obvious the primary facts are as pointers or the more inconclusive or ambivalent the explanations given for the events in issue are as pointers, the more the need for the Employment Tribunal to explain why it is that from such primary facts and upon such explanations the inference that they have drawn has been drawn. The more equivocal the primary facts, the more the Employment Tribunal needs to explain why they have concluded as they have.’ and ‘As we have mentioned the tribunal repeatedly said that there had been no intention to discriminate. That, of course, is not in itself an answer but it is likely to lead to a position in which the reasons for the inference of racial discrimination need to be fully explained.’

Judges:

Pill LJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 2056

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.185542

Callaghan v Glasgow City Council: 2001

Citations:

[2001] IRLR 724

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Cited – Hoyer (UK) Ltd v Capaldi EAT 18-Apr-2002
The parties had agreed to compromise the appeal on the basis that a new trial would be ordered. The EAT had to consider whether the settlement was appropriate.
Held: The employers had not accepted during his employment that he was disabled . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.182968

McConnell v Police Authority for Northern Ireland: 1997

An award of aggravated damages should not be an extra sum over and above the sum which the Tribunal of fact considers appropriate compensation for the injury to the claimants feelings, and that aggravated damages should not be treated as an extra award which reflects a degree of punishment of a respondent for its behaviour. The right course was to arrive at a figure which included whatever sum was thought to be appropriate by way of aggravated damages in order to reflect the sum for injury to feelings.

Judges:

Lord Chief Justice Carswell

Citations:

[1997] IRLR 625

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Cited by:

Cited – D Watt (Shetland) Ltd v Reid EAT 25-Sep-2001
The employer appealed an award of ten thousand pounds including aggravated damages, and other elements after a finding of sex discrimination. They also awarded six hundred pounds in interest. It was asserted that Scots law did not allow for . .
Cited – T G Harris v The Post Office (Royal Mail) EAT 25-Feb-2000
EAT Sex Discrimination – Injury to Feelings
The applicant, a homosexual, was humiliated at work by his fellow employees, and management failed to deal with his complaint. He succeeded in his claim for unfair . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Damages

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.182956

Parsons (CA) and Co Ltd v McLoughlin: EAT 1978

Citations:

[1978] IRLR 65 EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Denco Ltd v Joinson EAT 14-Nov-1991
cw Employment – Unfair dismissal – Reasonableness of dismissal – Misconduct – Computer – Deliberate and unauthorised access to computer files – Summary dismissal for gross misconduct – Whether purpose for which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.182887

Lennon v Birmingham City Council: 2001

Citations:

[2001] IRLR 826

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Rothschild Asset Management Limited v Ako CA 1-Mar-2002
The applicant had, in earlier proceedings before the Employment Tribunal, withdrawn issues she had raised. She now sought to pursue them, and the respondent asserted that she was estopped from doing so, and that the matter was res judicata. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.180919

Bastick v James Lane (Turf Accountants) Ltd: 1979

The court considered an appeal against a refusal of an adjournment of proceedings before the industrial tribunal when criminal proceedings on the same issues were pending.
Held: The court refused to interfere with the exercise of his dicretion by the industrial tribunal chairman. Crane J said: ‘Now we think that when we, in this appellate tribunal, approach a consideration of the validity of a decision by an industrial tribunal, or by the appropriate officer of an industrial tribunal, upon a matter of discretion, we must look for two things, the discovery of either of which would be sufficient to entitle us to overturn the exercise of that discretion. Either we must find, in order so to do, that the tribunal, or its chairman, has taken some matter which it was improper to take into account or has failed to take into account some matter which it was necessary to take into account in order that discretion might be properly exercised; or, alternatively if we do not find that, that the decision which was made by the tribunal, or its chairman, in the exercise of its discretion, was so far beyond what any reasonable tribunal or chairman could have decided that we are entitled to reject it as perverse.’

Judges:

Crane J

Citations:

[1979] ICR 778

Cited by:

Cited – Dr Y R Teinaz v Wandsworth Borough Council CA 16-Jul-2001
The applicant had made a claim to the tribunal, but then applied for an adjournment on medical grounds, submitting a medical certificate.
Held: Where a refusal to exercise a discretion could lead to the loss of significant rights, a court . .
Cited – Mote v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Another CA 14-Dec-2007
The appellant was accused of having received income benefits to which he was not entitled. A prosecution was commenced and at the same time he appealed to the tribunal against the decision that there had been an overpayment. The authorities . .
Approved – Carter v Credit Change Ltd CA 2-Jan-1979
There are restricted circumstances in which the tribunal can interfere on appeal with the tribunal’s exercise of its discretion. Stephenson LJ said: ‘All the reasons which he gave seem to me to be good reasons for the decision to which he came; many . .
Cited – St Albans Girls School and Another v Neary CA 12-Nov-2009
The claimant’s case had been struck out after non-compliance with an order to file further particulars. His appeal was allowed by the EAT, and the School now itself appealed, saying that the employment judge had wrongly had felt obliged to have . .
Mentioned – Bull 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: . .
Cited – P v West Dorset General Hospital NHS Trust EAT 9-Jun-2004
EAT Practice and Procedure – Postponement or stay – Application for stay of ET proceedings pending GMC professional misconduct hearing refused. No error of law; if so; stay appropriate. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Litigation Practice

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.180696

Miklaszewicz v Stolt Offshore Ltd: EAT 25 Apr 2001

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

Judges:

The Honourable Lord Johnston

Citations:

EAT/1385/00

Links:

EAT

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Appeal from – Stolt Offshore Ltd v Miklaszewicz SCS 21-Dec-2001
In a protected disclosure case, time runs from the occurrence of the alleged detriment and not from the alleged disclosure.
Lord Nimmo Smith said: ‘It would appear to us to be consistent with the main purpose of the 1998 Act to approach the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.168168

Webb (Judgment): ECJ 17 Dec 1981

Where an undertaking hires out, for remuneration, staff who remain in the employ of that undertaking, no contract of employment being entered into with the user, its activities constitute an occupation which satisfies the conditions laid down in the first paragraph of article 60 of the eec treaty. Accordingly they must be considered a ‘ ‘ service ‘ ‘ within the meaning of that provision.
The essential requirements of article 59 of the treaty became directly and unconditionally applicable on the expiry of the transitional period. Those essential requirements abolish all discrimination against the person providing the service by reason of his nationality or the fact that he is established in a member state other than that in which the service is to be provided. The freedom to provide services is one of the fundamental principles of the treaty and may be restricted only by provisions which are justified by the general good and which are imposed on all persons or undertakings operating in the member state in which the service is to be provided in so far as that interest is not safeguarded by the provisions to which the provider of the service is subject in the member state of his establishment.
Article 59 of the treaty does not preclude a member state which requires agencies for the provision of manpower to hold a licence from requiring a provider of services established in another member state and pursuing such activities on the territory of the first member state to comply with that condition even if he holds a licence issued by the state in which he is established, provided, however, that in the first place when considering applications for licences and in granting them the member state in which the service is provided makes no distinction based on the nationality of the provider of the services or his place of establishment, and in the second place that it takes into account the evidence and guarantees already produced by the provider of the services for the pursuit of his activities in the member state in which he is established.

Citations:

C-279/80

European, Employment

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.133160

Regina v Crown Prosecution Service Ex Parte Hogg: CA 14 Apr 1994

A Crown Prosecution Service prosecutor’s dismissal was not reviewable, his contract was not underpinned by statute. However, even in employment cases the possibility of judicial review cannot always be ruled out.

Judges:

Lord Bingham MR

Citations:

Times 14-Apr-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (Tucker) v Director General of the National Crime Squad CA 17-Jan-2003
The applicant was a senior officer seconded to the National Crime Squad. He complained that his secondment had been terminated in a manner which was unfair, and left him tainted without opportunity to reply. He appealed against rejection of his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.86484

Newbold and Another v Leicester City Council: CA 20 Aug 1999

An authority which had made an agreement which gave benefits to its employees in return for a reduction in their earnings was bound by that agreement even if it later proved more expensive than had been expected, and very generous. The scheme was not ultra vires. It was not a voluntary payment, but one under which employees had surrendered benefits.

Citations:

Times 20-Aug-1999, Gazette 11-Aug-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Distinguished – Allsop v North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council CA 1991
The district auditor declared that payments made by the Council under an ‘enhanced voluntary severance scheme’, established by it in connection with its policy of not making employees compulsorily redundant, were unlawful. The payments were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Employment

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.84270

Governing Body of Clifton Middle Schooland others v Askew: CA 2 Aug 1999

A teacher employed within a local authority school was an employee of the authority and not of the school itself. Where an authority cease to maintain a junior and middle school and opened a new school he was properly made redundant. The transfer of undertakings regulations did not apply in his case.

Citations:

Gazette 02-Sep-1999, Times 02-Aug-1999

Statutes:

Education Act 1980 12, Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (1981 No 1794)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.80950

Lakeview Computers Plc v Steadman: 26 Nov 1999

Citations:

Unreported, 26 November 1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Ultraframe UK Limited v Clayton, Fielding and Others ChD 3-Oct-2002
The claimants asserted infringement of their registered design rights in parts used in their double glazing and conservatory units. ‘Therefore it is possible for design right to subsist in the design of the part of the article which is not excluded . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.191134

A G Davies and others v M J Wyatt (Decorators) Ltd: EAT 13 Jul 2000

Upon implementation of the Working Time Directive requiring employers to provide paid holiday, the respondents adjusted the wages of their staff down to balance the new holiday payments. The Regulations provided that the new rights should not affect any other existing contractual right, and accordingly the reduction was unlawful.
EAT Unlawful Deduction from Wages –

Judges:

His Honour Judge David Wilcox

Citations:

Times 24-Oct-2000, EAT/1262/99

Links:

EAT

Statutes:

Council Directive 93/104/EC

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.171454

Lowndes v Specialist Heavy Engineering Ltd: 1977

Citations:

[1977] ICR 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Polkey v A E Dayton Services Limited HL 19-Nov-1987
Mr Polkey was employed as a driver. The company decided to replace four van drivers with two van salesmen and a representative. Mr Polkey and two other van drivers were made redundant. Without warning, he was called in and informed that he had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.441862

Hooper v British Railways Board: CA 1988

Lord Justice Ralph Gibson said: ‘Before dealing with Mr Marr-Johnson’s submissions reference must be made to what are, in my judgment, certain basic principles of the law of contract. (i) An offer which, upon acceptance, is relied upon as altering the legal relationship between the parties, must be construed objectively. Evidence to show what the offeror intended to be the meaning of the term is not admissible for that purpose: see Prenn v Simmonds (1971) 1 WLR 1381.’

Judges:

Ralph Gibson LJ

Citations:

[1988] IRLR 517

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Rolls Royce Motor Cars Ltd v Price and others EAT 2-Feb-1993
The company appealed against findings of unfair dismissal of the claimants, saying that they had been made redundant. The claimants said that the company had broken the agreed procedure, and that the dismissals were automatically unfair.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.393007

Nikitas v Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council: EAT 1986

An interlocutory order once made may be revisited by the Employment Tribunal. Waterhouse J said: ‘It is abundantly clear, therefore, that interlocutory orders do not constitute a decision within the meaning of the Industrial Tribunal (Rules of Procedure) Regulations 1980. Moreover, the power of review provided by rule 10(1) applies only to a decision within the meaning of the Rules. It follows that neither the full tribunal not the chairman sitting alone has power to review interlocutory orders previously made or the refusal of such orders within the provisions of rule 10. When a party to proceedings before a tribunal is dissatisfied with an interlocutory order that has been made, or by the refusal of an interlocutory order, it is clear that his remedy is to apply again to the tribunal for directions in accordance with the provisions of rule 13(2). Accordingly, the chairman of the tribunal in this case was entitled to deal with the applications made by the employee following the hearing on 3 June 1981, as applications for further directions within the terms of rule 13(2), and to adjudicate upon them in the way that he did.’

Judges:

Waterhouse J

Citations:

[1986] ICR 291

Statutes:

Industrial Tribunal (Rules of Procedure) Regulations 1980

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Sodexho Ltd v Gibbons EAT 14-Jul-2005
EAT Deposit ordered. Order lost in post due to the Claimant putting wrong post-code on ET1. Review. Distinguishing Judgments from Orders. Strike-out. Extending time. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.347420

Morison v Moat: 20 Aug 1851

A servant, Moat, sought to use a secret formula of his employer’s. The plaintiff requested an injunction to restrain use of the formula.
Held: The Vice Chancellor reiterated the principles, as to which he said there was ‘no doubt’, adding: ‘The Defendant admits that the secret was communicated to him by Thomas Moat . . The question then is whether there was an equity against him; and I am of opinion that there was. It was clearly a breach of faith and of contract on the part of Thomas Moat to communicate the secret. The Defendant derives under that breach of faith and of contract, and I think he can gain no title by it . . the cases of Tipping v Clarke and Prince Albert v Strange shew that the equity prevails against parties deriving under the breach of contract or duty.
It might indeed be different if the Defendant was a purchaser for value of the secret without notice of any obligation affecting it; and the Defendant’s case was attempted to be put upon this ground . . but I do not think that this view of the case can avail him . . So far as the secret is concerned he is a mere volunteer deriving under a breach of trust or of contract.’

Judges:

Sir George Turner VC

Citations:

(1851) 9 Hare 241, [1851] EngR 790, (1851) 68 ER 492

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Morison v Moat 1852
Affirmed . .
Cited – Lord Ashburton v Pape CA 1913
Pape’s bankruptcy discharge was opposed by Lord Ashburton. He subpoenaed Brooks, a clerk to Lord Ashburton’s solicitor and obtained privileged letters written by Lord Ashburton to Mr Nocton, which Pape proposed to use. Pape and Brooks had colluded. . .
Approved – Lamb v Evans CA 1893
The plaintiff printed and published a multi-lingual European trade directory, engaging the defendants as commission agents to solicit paid entries for the directory. The businessmen could, if they wished, supply wood blocks or other materials from . .
Cited – Tchenguiz and Others v Imerman CA 29-Jul-2010
Anticipating a refusal by H to disclose assets in ancillary relief proceedings, W’s brothers wrongfully accessed H’s computers to gather information. The court was asked whether the rule in Hildebrand remained correct. W appealed against an order . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Information

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.270393

Photocorporation (Uk) Ltd v Truelove: EAT 11 Dec 2003

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Procedural fairness/automatically unfair dismissal.

Judges:

His Honour Judge J Mcmullen Qc

Citations:

0080/03

Links:

EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Photocorporation (UK) Ltd v Truelove EAT 11-Apr-2003
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Procedural fairness. The tribunal was asked as to the alleged constructive unfair dismissal of a senior manager whose partner leaves and subsequently joins the competition, creating genuine . .

Cited by:

See Also – Photo Corporation (UK) Ltd v Truelove EAT 20-Apr-2004
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Compensation – Polkey deduction – decision on remission – whether Meek-compliant – whether ET assessment unsustainable on facts found. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.256696

Duke v Prospect Training Services Ltd: EAT 1988

Use of tribunal’s discretion to extend time for appeal.

Judges:

Popplewell J.(President)

Citations:

[1988] ICR 521

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – United Arab Emirates v Abdelghafar and others EAT 29-Jul-1994
At a preliminary hearing, when the respondent failed to appear, the tribunal decided that it had jurisdiction to hear a case brought by the claimant against the respondent despite the 1978 Act. The respondent sought to appeal out of time.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.214635

Regina v Chief Constable of Thames Valley ex parte Cotton: 1990

In order:- ‘to make good a natural justice challenge an applicant must establish where there is a real, as opposed to purely minimal possibility that the outcome would have been different’ (Simon Brown J) Bingham LJ: ‘While cases may no doubt arise in which it can properly be held that denying the subject of a decision an adequate opportunity to put his case is not in all the circumstances unfair, I would expect these cases to be of great rarity. There are a number of reasons for this:- 1. Unless the subject of the decision has had the opportunity to put his case it may not be easy to knew what case he could or would have put if he had the chance. 2. As memorably pointed out by Megarry J in John v. Rees [1970] Ch 345 at page 402, experience shows that what is confidently expected is by no means always that which happens. 3. It is generally desirable that decision-makers should be reasonably receptive to argument, and it would therefore be unfortunate if a complainant’s position became weaker as the decision-maker’s mind became more closed. 4. In considering whether the complainant’s representations would have made any difference to the outcome the court may unconsciously stray from its proper province of reviewing the propriety of the decision-making process into the forbidden territory of evaluating the substantial merits of a decision. 5. This is a field in which appearances are generally thought to matter. 6. Where the decision-maker is under a duty to act fairly the subject of the decision may properly be said to have a right to be heard, and rights are not to be lightly denied’.

Judges:

Simon Brown J, Bingham LJ

Citations:

[1990] IRLR 344

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Capenhurst and Others, Regina (on the Application Of) v Leicester City Council Admn 15-Sep-2004
The applicants, representatives of voluntary organisations, challenged decisions of the local authority to withdraw their funding, saying the decision making process had been unfair.
Held: Even if it was not bound to consult, if the authority . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Administrative

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.213648

Hackney London Borough Council v Usher: 1997

‘ it is open to a tribunal to stop a case at half time where a party going first and upon whom the onus lies has clearly failed to establish what he set out to establish. . . Thirdly, there have been and will be utterly hopeless or frivolous cases where a tribunal is entitled to halt the proceedings without hearing the other party.’

Judges:

His Hon. Judge Peter Clarke

Citations:

[1997] ICR 705

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Logan v Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA 23-Jul-2003
The respondent had at the close of the claimant’s case submitted that it had no case to answer. The tribunal agreed and discharged the claim without hearing from the respondent. The employer appealed the EAT’s decision to allow her appeal.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.185983

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.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (P)

Citations:

[2003] UKEAT 0369 – 02 – 0807, EAT/1036/02, EAT/848/02

Links:

EATn

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 . .
See Also – Kingston Upon Hull City Council v Dunnachie EAT 23-Jun-2003
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Procedural fairness/automatically unfair dismissal. . .

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 . .
Cited – 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 – 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: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.185782