Associated Foreign Exchange Ltd v International Foreign Exchange (UK) Ltd and Another: ChD 26 May 2010

The claimant sought interim injunctions to enforce a restrictive covenant against solicitation of customers in a former employee’s contract. The employee, a FOREX dealer, had been placed on garden leave for three months and then his contract terminated. The contract sought a further twelve months’ restriction.
Held: At trial it was likely to be held that the twelve months’ duration of the non-solicitation clause went beyond what was reasonably necessary for the protection of AFEX’s legitimate interests. Cousins J thought it likely that any period beyond six months would be found objectionable. Also the extension of the covenant to potential customers was unreasonable.

Judges:

Cousins QC J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 1178 (Ch), [2010] IRLR 964

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedAmerican Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd HL 5-Feb-1975
Interim Injunctions in Patents Cases
The plaintiffs brought proceedings for infringement of their patent. The proceedings were defended. The plaintiffs obtained an interim injunction to prevent the defendants infringing their patent, but they now appealed its discharge by the Court of . .
CitedCredit Suisse Asset Management Ltd v Armstrong and Others CA 3-Jun-1996
The employer provided fund management services to private clients. The notice periods for the various employees ranged between three and twelve months, but the handbook governing the terms of employment provided that during the respective notice . .
CitedLansing Linde v Kerr CA 1991
Staughton LJ held that ‘trade secrets’ embrace information used in a trade, restricted in its dissemination, and the disclosure of which would be liable to cause real or significant harm to the party claiming confidentiality. He considered the . .
CitedHerbert Morris Ltd v Saxelby HL 1916
For a covenant in restraint of trade to be treated as reasonable in the interests of the parties ‘it must afford no more than adequate protection to the benefit of the party in whose favour it is imposed.’ There is a need for the court to consider . .
CitedKores Manufacturing Co Ltd v Kolok Manufacturing Ltd CA 1959
When considering a post employment restrictive covenant on an employee, the court should allow that an employer has a legitimate interest in maintaining a stable and trained workforce. However, even accepting that interest, an employer has no . .
CitedStenhouse Australia Ltd v Phillips PC 2-Oct-1973
(Australia) An employer’s claim for protection from competition by a former employee under a restrictive covenant must be based upon the identification of some advantage or asset inherent in the business which can properly be regarded as, in a . .
CitedMason v Provident Clothing and Supply Co Ltd HL 1913
The employee had covenanted not to work for any of the employer’s competitors ‘within 25 miles of London’. The appellate committee held that the employer had failed to establish that the extension of the restraint to the area thus specified was . .
CitedTFS Derivatives Ltd v Morgan QBD 15-Nov-2004
The claimant sought to enforce a post employment restrictive covenant. There was a 6 months’ prohibition, post-termination of employment (less any period of garden leave) on any employment which was competitive with the business of a former . .
CitedInternational Consulting Services (UK) Ltd v Hart QBD 26-Jan-2000
The claimant sought damages and an injunction from their former employee, the defendant, saying that he had breached a post-employment restrictive covenant.
Held: The court upheld a 12-month non-solicitation clause. This was however a . .
CitedDowden and Pook Ltd v Pook CA 1904
When an employment covenant is unlimited, the covenant cannot be rewritten to limit its territorial extent. . .
CitedHome Counties Dairies v Skilton CA 1970
In construing an employee’s restrictive covenant, a court should disregard fanciful hypotheses or arguments leading to a reductio ad absurdum. . .
CitedDawnay, Day and Co Limited; Wilcourt Investments Limited v D’Alphen; Johnston; Parkman; Cantor Fitzgerald International CA 22-May-1997
The defendants were investment managers who left the plaintiff’s employment to take up posts with a rival. DD issued these proceedings claiming to enforce inter alia contractual undertakings by the defendants not to compete with the business of DDS, . .
CitedDairy Crest Ltd v Piggott CA 1989
When considering restrictive covenants in employment cases, courts must not seek to uphold a clause as reasonable only because the same clause was upheld in a different case. It is an error of law. There is no ‘tariff’ of what is reasonable. In this . .
CitedGilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne CA 1933
The defendant was the plaintiff’s former managing director. He was bound by a restrictive covenant after he left them. To avoid the covenant, he formed a company and sought to transact his business through it. At first instance, Farwell J had found . .
CitedM and S Drapers (a Firm) v Reynolds CA 1956
The defendant, a collector salesman entered the employment of a firm of credit drapers at a weekly wage of andpound;10. He brought with him the connection of customers acquired in previous employments. He entered into a restrictive covenant that he . .
CitedOffice Angels Ltd v Rainer-Thomas CA 1991
Reasonability Test of Post Employment Restriction
The court re-stated the principles applicable in testing whether an employee’s restrictive covenant was reasonable: ‘The court cannot say that a covenant in one form affords no more than adequate protection to a covenantee’s relevant legitimate . .
CitedBasic Solutions Ltd v Sands QBD 23-Jun-2008
The claimant sought injunctions to prevent misuse by former employees of confidential information in their possession and breach of a post employment restrictive covenant.
Held: Eady J said that he could not see, as a matter of general . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Contract

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.416206

Tradition Financial Services Ltd v Gamberoni and Others: QBD 12 Apr 2017

Post-employment restrictions on the employee included a covenant on his part not for six months to ‘undertake, carry on or be employed, engaged or interested in any capacity in . . any business activity’ of a specified character. Among the employee’s various contentions that the restrictions were in unreasonable restraint of trade was a contention that the word ‘interested’ disabled him from holding even a small quantity of shares in companies of the specified character.
In response the employer adverted to two features of the contract. Thus, as Foskett J explained the employer relied on an earlier clause of the contract under which during his employment the employee had been permitted to hold small amounts of shares, even apparently in competing companies. This was the foundation of the employer’s primary argument, which the judge described as follows and which he accepted: ‘it cannot sensibly have been intended that [the employee] should be subject to a more onerous restriction as to shareholdings after his employment had terminated than whilst still an employee, particularly if it is suggested that the more onerous obligation is created by a clause that makes no express reference to shareholdings at all. In other words, whatever ‘interested in any capacity . . in any business activity’ means, it cannot be a reference to a shareholding.’
Foskett J explained that the employer also relied on the fact that the covenant prohibited the employee from being interested in a ‘business activity’ and it argued that passive investment by way of a minority shareholding was not a ‘business activity’.

Judges:

Foskett J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 768 (QB), [2017] IRLR 698

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedTillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd SC 3-Jul-2019
The company appealed from rejection of its contention that its former employee should be restrained from employment by a competitor under a clause in her former employment contract. . .
CitedTillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd SC 3-Jul-2019
The company appealed from rejection of its contention that its former employee should be restrained from employment by a competitor under a clause in her former employment contract. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.581983

Regina v British Coal Corporation, Ex Parte Price and Others (No 2): QBD 23 Feb 1993

A Court having made a declaration in the course of a hearing, was then functus officio as regards that decision, and could not revisit it at a later hearing. Nor in this case was it possible for the Corporation to approach the court for a declaration in advance that a decision it might want to make would or would not be in contempt.

Citations:

Times 23-Feb-1993

Statutes:

Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946 46

Litigation Practice, Employment

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.86212

Rae (Agnes) v Glasgow City Council and Another: OHCS 22 Apr 1997

An employer may be liable for damages for passive smoking if the claim is pleaded correctly.

Citations:

Times 22-Apr-1997

Statutes:

Offices Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 7

Environment, Employment, Health and Safety, Negligence

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85639

Raspin v United Shops Ltd: EAT 24 Mar 1999

A breach of contract by an employer failing to follow disciplinary procedure which leaves an employee unable to pursue claim for unfair dismissal, was remediable as a breach of contract by wrongful dismissal and damages accordingly. What must be compared for the purposes of assessing damages was the position in which the employee found herself when dismissed, at a date when she had no right to complain of unfair dismissal, with the position in which she would have found herself had she been dismissed on or after the date at which the right to bring such a complaint arose: ‘Once one makes that comparison then one is inevitably, in our view, and in a perfectly orthodox way, in a situation where chances have to be evaluated, because there is no certainty as to what would have happened had she still been employed on 16th May [when the statutory right would have accrued to her] but the possibilities are limited.’

Judges:

Judge Hicks QC

Citations:

Gazette 24-Mar-1999, [1999] IRLR 9

Citing:

CitedStapp v The Shaftesbury Society CA 1982
The employer had told the claimant: ‘I must ask you to relinquish your duties with effect from today 7 February 1981’ and thereby summarily dismissed him.
Held: The employer was clearly summarily dismissing with immediate effect in a wholly . .
CitedRobert Court and Son Ltd v Charman EAT 1981
The EAT considered the effect of the statutory period of notice: ‘As a result, in our view Mr Charman has no right to complain to the Industrial Tribunal of unfair dismissal. Even if, as one must, one treats the effective date of termination as . .
CitedBrindle v Smith CA 1972
A question arose as to the position of an employee wrongfully dismissed just before the end of his first 104 weeks of service where he would have qualified to have a right not to be unfairly dismissed if he had been given proper notice.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85671

Regina v South Yorkshire Police Authority Ex Parte Booth: QBD 10 Oct 2000

There is no power in law for a police authority to fund payment of legal expenses incurred by an officer of the rank of Superintendent or below when defending disciplinary proceedings. The statutory code was not displaced by the Duckinfield case. The Regulations and Act were clear in restricting such assistance to appeals against disciplinary findings, and to proceedings against senior officers.

Citations:

Times 10-Oct-2000

Statutes:

Police Act 1996, Police (Conduct) Senior Officer Regulations 1999 (1999 No 731)

Police, Employment, Costs

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85565

Regina v Secretary of State for Education and Employment, Ex Parte National Union of Teachers: QBD 8 Aug 2000

The general power of the Secretary of State to promote education did not extend to provision for the terms and conditions of teachers’ employment or establishing systems for the payment of higher rates of pay to teachers meeting performance standards. Reference to Parliament was necessary. The Secretary of State had not followed consultation procedures set down for the making of significant alterations to teachers contracts.

Citations:

Times 08-Aug-2000

Statutes:

School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Act 1991

Education, Employment, Administrative

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85477

Regina v Chief Constable of Merseyside, Ex Parte Bennion: QBD 18 Jul 2000

A senior officer had begun a claim against the police officer alleging sex discrimination. She complained that when disciplinary proceedings were commenced against her, the person making the decision would be the Chief Constable, and that his decision there would affect the other proceedings. Even though the Chief Constable had come into post after the events giving rise to the claim, he was being sued in a sufficiently personal capacity to make it a breach of natural justice to hear the disciplinary proceedings.

Citations:

Times 18-Jul-2000, Gazette 27-Jul-2000

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police, ex parte Carol Ann Bennion CA 4-May-2001
The claimant sought a judicial review against a Chief Constable against whose force she had made complaints of sex discrimination and victimisation, not to remit disciplinary proceedings against her under regulation 14 of the 1985 Regulations to . .
CitedHeath v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis CA 20-Jul-2004
The female civilian officer alleged sex discrimination against her by a police officer. Her complaint was heard at an internal disciplinary. She alleged sexual harrassment, and was further humiliated by the all male board’s treatment of her . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Natural Justice, Employment, Police

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85181

Pendragon Plc v Jackson: EAT 19 Nov 1997

The right of appeal from the tribunal to the EAT in matters of contract law was lost in the new regulations; there are no statutory provision for what would be a statutory procedure..

Citations:

Times 19-Nov-1997

Statutes:

Industrial Tribunals Act 1996

Cited by:

See AlsoPendragon Plc v Jackson EAT 30-Jun-1998
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84648

Nour Edine El-Yassini v Secretary of State for the Home Department Case C-416/96: ECJ 11 Aug 1999

Where a member state accepted a foreign national and later gave him a work permit upon his marriage, it was permissible not to renew that residence and work permit where the circumstance warranting the work permit disappeared upon his separation from his wife. It would be different where the employment rights granted had been greater in extent than the residence permit.

Citations:

Gazette 11-Aug-1999

Employment, European

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84380

Noorani v Merseyside TEC Limited: EAT 21 Apr 1999

A tribunal’s discretion not to grant witness summonses because the witnesses appeared to be only of limited relevance was not to be interfered with, save where it was unreasonable. A tribunal can always act to remedy the refusal later if this appeared correct.

Citations:

Gazette 21-Apr-1999, (1999) IRLR 184

Citing:

See AlsoNoorani v Merseyside TEC Limited CA 19-Oct-1998
The claimant had claimed race discrimination. The tribunal declined to order the issue of witness summonses. The EAT overturned that decision on the basis that the tribunal had not recognised that it had a discretion to issue the summonses, and had . .
See AlsoMerseyside Tec Limited v Noorani CA 21-Nov-1997
Application for leave to appeal. The respondent had said that the EAT had erred in overturning the tribunal chair’s decision not to issue witness summonses.
Held: Leave was granted. . .
See AlsoNoorani v Merseyside TEC Ltd EAT 17-Jun-1997
The claimant appealed against the dismissal of his complaint of race discrimination saying that the tribunal had erred in not issuing a witness summons. The tribunal had said that the potential evidence was not relevant.
Held: There had been . .

Cited by:

CitedAbbey National Plc v Fairbrother EAT 12-Jan-2007
EAT Unfair Dismissal
Disability discrimination
The Tribunal had found a dismissal to be unfair because of flaws in a grievance procedure, following which the Claimant had resigned. They also found . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84317

Morris v John Grose Group Limited: EAT 16 Sep 1998

Where an employee was dismissed by a receiver before the receiver entered into negotiations for the sale of a business, he was dismissed as part of a transfer. The word ‘transfer’ did not have to relate to a particular deal.

Citations:

Gazette 16-Sep-1998, (1998) IRLR 499

Statutes:

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

Employment, Insolvency

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83855

Ministry of Defence v Cannock and Others: EAT 2 Aug 1994

Compensation awarded for a pregnancy dismissal was to assume that the worker would ready to work again after six months. Review and guidelines of damages for unfair dismissal for pregnancy. The hypothetical question requires careful thought before it is answered. It is a difficult area of the law. It is not like an issue of primary fact, as when a court has to decide which of two differing recollections of past events is the more reliable. The question requires a forecast to be made about the course of future events. It has to be answered on the basis of the best assessment that can be made on the relevant material available to the court. That includes statistical material. Morison J said: ‘statistics are going to prove a good starting point’ in relation to the question of the length of service, which the applicant has hypothetically lost. Such chances ‘must be assessed sensibly having regard to what happens in real life.’

Judges:

Morison J

Citations:

Independent 15-Sep-1994, Times 02-Aug-1994, [1994] ICR 918

Statutes:

Sex Discrimination Act 1975

Cited by:

CitedVento v The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (No 2) CA 20-Dec-2002
The claimant had been awarded damages for sex discrimination, including a sum of andpound;25,000 for injury to feelings. The respondent appealed.
Held: The Court of Appeal looked to see whether there had been an error of law in the employment . .
CitedChagger v Abbey National Plc and Another CA 13-Nov-2009
The claimant appealed against the limitation of 2% placed on the uplift of his award of damages for having failed to comply with relevant dispute procedures. The tribunal had found exceptional reasons for reducing the uplift given the size of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination, Damages

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83742

Merkx and Another v Ford Motors Co Belgium Sa: ECJ 21 Mar 1996

A transfer of an exclusive dealership contract but without transfer of any physical assets could still be a transfer of an undertaking within the meaning of the regulations.

Citations:

Times 21-Mar-1996

Statutes:

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

Employment, European

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83663

Mennell v Newell and Wright (Transport Contractors) Ltd: EAT 2 May 1996

Threat of dismissal invalidated change of contract allowing deductions from wage.

Citations:

Times 02-May-1996

Statutes:

Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1988 60A(2)

Citing:

Appealed toNewell and Wright (Transport Contractors) Limited v Mennell CA 10-Jul-1997
Requirement to accept new contract allowing deductions not sufficient alone; employee unable to show that was reason for dismissal. A refusal to accept threat of unlawful deduction from wages does not create unfair dismissal jurisdiction. . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromNewell and Wright (Transport Contractors) Limited v Mennell CA 10-Jul-1997
Requirement to accept new contract allowing deductions not sufficient alone; employee unable to show that was reason for dismissal. A refusal to accept threat of unlawful deduction from wages does not create unfair dismissal jurisdiction. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83631

Mark Wilkinson Furniture Ltd v Construction Industry Training Board: QBD 10 Oct 2000

The operation of installing kitchens could amount to work altering a building. Accordingly firms carrying out such installations were liable to pay a levy as a contribution to the industry’s training scheme. Although in many cases fittings might only be attached to buildings by screws, the fittings were intended to alter the character of a building, and counted as such.

Citations:

Times 10-Oct-2000

Statutes:

Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1999 159

Citing:

See AlsoMark Wilkinson Furniture Limited and Construction Industry Training Board Admn 12-Jan-2000
. .

Cited by:

See alsoMark Wilkinson Furniture Limited and Construction Industry Training Board Admn 12-Jan-2000
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Construction, Employment

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83411

Marley (Uk) Ltd and Another v Anderson: EAT 16 Dec 1993

An IT can consider a complaint of unfair dismissal amended with new a ground after time would otherwise have expired.

Citations:

Times 16-Dec-1993

Statutes:

Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 67(2)

Citing:

Appealed toMarley UK Ltd and Another v Anderson CA 20-Dec-1995
The IT can consider an unfair dismissal claim amended with new ground after time. Each claim for extension of time for filing is to be looked at individually. A second out of time application may be heard if a different ground-time is re-started. . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromMarley UK Ltd and Another v Anderson CA 20-Dec-1995
The IT can consider an unfair dismissal claim amended with new ground after time. Each claim for extension of time for filing is to be looked at individually. A second out of time application may be heard if a different ground-time is re-started. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83416

Lovie v Anderson: EAT 27 Jun 1999

An employee was convicted of two offences of indecent exposure alleged to have taken place in a work context. The employers dismissed him without allowing him a chance to explain. This was possible in some circumstances, but not this, and he was held unfairly dismissed.

Citations:

Gazette 27-Jun-1999, [1999] IRLR 164

Employment

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83225

Lock v Cardiff Railway Company Ltd: EAT 3 Sep 1998

The appellant complained that he was not warned that the offence for which he was dismissed might lead to his dismissal. The EAT overturned the Employment Tribunal’s finding that the employer had acted reasonably in the dismissal where the tribunal had failed to take proper account of the failure of the employer to follow the ACAS code of practice on disciplinary practice and procedures, which provided: ‘Employees should be made aware of the likely consequences of breaking the rules and in particular they should be given a clear indication of the type of conduct which may warrant summary dismissal.’ The employer was strongly criticised for not having a code of conduct, and secondly for not following the provisions of the ACAS Code of Practice, and in particular, in not specifying what offences would be regarded gross misconduct justifying dismissal for a first breach.

Judges:

Morrison J

Citations:

Gazette 03-Sep-1998, [1998] IRLR 358

Cited by:

Confined to its factsC Knight v King Edward VI Grammar School – Louth EAT 7-Oct-1999
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Procedural Fairness . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83145

Lewen v Denda (Case C-333/97): ECJ 16 Nov 1999

A voluntary bonus paid by an employer to its staff at Christmas was ‘pay’ within Art 14 of the EC Treaty, where it was paid to encourage or reward for loyalty and work. Such a payment was not a ‘payment’ within the rules governing measures to encourage health and safety of pregnant and breast feeding workers.

Citations:

Times 16-Nov-1999

Statutes:

ECTreaty Art 14, Council Directive 92/85/EEC

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83041

Kenny v Hampshire Constabulary: EAT 22 Oct 1998

The withdrawal of a job offer to a man with cerebral palsy was not disability discrimination, where it was because of the difficulty of making the arrangements necessary to put the applicant in a position to do the work as opposed to pure work related issues.

Citations:

Times 22-Oct-1998, Gazette 11-Nov-1998

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995 6

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.82734

Julius Fillibeck Sohne Gmbh and Co Kg v Finanzamt Neustadt: ECJ 27 Nov 1997

Transport which was provided to a company’s workers in order to get to employment and where there was no real connection between the transport and the type of work was not a vatable supply.

Citations:

Times 27-Nov-1997

Statutes:

Council Directive 77/388/EEC

Jurisdiction:

European

VAT, Employment

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.82648

Janciuk v Winerite Ltd: EAT 17 Nov 1997

An employee was not entitled to damages for the failure of his employer to follow disciplinary procedures. The attempt to introduce the idea of loss of a chance into the quantification of a dismissed employee’s damages for breach of contract would be a heresy.
Morison J P said: ‘Some contracts of employment require the employer to follow a disciplinary procedure before notice of dismissal can be given. In other words, the disciplinary procedure acts as a brake on the giving of notice. In such a case, the employer would be acting in breach of contract if he gave notice terminating the contract without first having followed the correct procedure. The measure of loss for that breach is based upon an assessment of the time which, had the procedure been followed, the employee’s employment would have continued. Again, that does not require an analysis of the chances that had the procedures been followed the employee might never have been dismissed. At this stage the court is engaged on a process of quantifying damage suffered by a dismissed employee. The court is concerned to know what would have happened contractually, if instead of unlawfully dismissing the employee the employer had not broken the contract, bearing in mind the Lavarack v Woods principle. For this purpose, the assumption that must be made is that the employer would have dismissed the employee at the first available moment open to him; namely after the procedure had been exhausted. The court is not concerned to inquire whether the employee would have been dismissed had the contract been performed, but rather for how long would the employee have been employed before the employer was contractually entitled to give notice. This is on the assumption that the employer has not been accused of acting in bad faith where other principles might apply. ‘

Judges:

Morison J P

Citations:

Gazette 11-Mar-1998, [1998] IRLR 63

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedEdwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust QBD 31-Jul-2009
The claimant, a consultant surgeon had been subject to disciplinary proceedings by his employer. They were however conducted in a manner which breached his contract. The GMC had summarily dismissed the same allegations. The claimant now appealed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Damages

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.82490

Jefferies and Others v Mayes and Others; National Grid Company Plc v Same; National Power Plc v Feldon and Others: ChD 30 Jun 1997

A lawful decision by pension trustees as to the use of a pension surplus is not susceptible to being overruled by the Pension’s Ombudsman.

Citations:

Times 30-Jun-1997

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Financial Services, Administrative, Employment

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.82505

Johnson v HM Prison Service and Others: EAT 31 Dec 1996

Awards of damages for race discrimination were proper against both the employer, and an individual racist employee. 28k was not too much. Aggravated damages might be appropriate for direct discrimination where a complainant relied upon malice of conduct as a source of aggravation of hurt to feelings. Smith J reviewed the authorities on compensation for non-pecuniary loss and said: ‘(i) Awards for injury to feelings are compensatory. They should be just to both parties. They should compensate fully without punishing the tortfeasor. Feelings of indignation at the tortfeasor’s conduct should not be allowed to inflate the award. (ii) Awards should not be too low, as that would diminish respect for the policy of the anti-discrimination legislation. Society has condemned discrimination and awards must ensure that it is seen to be wrong. On the other hand, awards should be restrained, as excessive awards could, to use the phrase of Sir Thomas Bingham MR, be seen as the way to ‘untaxed riches’. (iii) Awards should bear some broad general similarity to the range of awards in personal injury cases. We do not think that this should be done by reference to any particular type of personal injury award, rather to the whole range of such awards. (iv) In exercising that discretion in assessing a sum, tribunals should remind themselves of the value in everyday life of the sum they have in mind. This may be done by reference to purchasing power or by reference to earnings. (v) Finally, tribunals should bear in mind Sir Thomas Bingham’s reference for the need for public respect for the level of awards made. ‘

Judges:

Smith J

Citations:

Times 31-Dec-1996, [1997] IRLR 162, [1997] ICR 275

Statutes:

Race Relations Act 1976

Citing:

ConsideredAlexander v Home Office CA 1988
Prisoners are a section of the public for the purposes of the 1976 Act. The Court increased an award for injury to feelings awarded for race discrimination by prison officers from pounds 50 to pounds 500. The court considered the appropriate level . .
See AlsoHM Prison Services and others v Johnson EAT 19-Feb-1996
. .

Cited by:

CitedBennett T/A Foxbar Hotel v Reid EAT 26-Sep-2001
The employer appealed an award of ten thousand pounds for injured feelings, following a finding of sex discrimination. It was said that the award went beyond compensation to punishment. To vary such an award, the EAT must find some error of . .
CitedD 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 . .
AppliedT 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 . .
CitedVento v The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (No 2) CA 20-Dec-2002
The claimant had been awarded damages for sex discrimination, including a sum of andpound;25,000 for injury to feelings. The respondent appealed.
Held: The Court of Appeal looked to see whether there had been an error of law in the employment . .
CitedBritish Telecommunications plc v Reid CA 6-Oct-2003
The respondent appealed an award of pounds 10.000 for damages for an act of direct race discrimination. The claimant, of Afro-Caribbean origin, had been subjected to a racist comment.
Held: Translating hurt feelings into hard currency will . .
CitedWardle v Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank CA 11-May-2011
The claimant had been found to have been unlawfully dismissed and to have suffered nationality discrimination. Each party appealed against aspects of the compensatory award including the application of the statutory uplift, and the calculation of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment, Damages

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.82557

Jack Allen (Sales and Services) Ltd v Smith: OHCS 10 Mar 1999

An interim order enforcing a post employment restriction should be available only where not void because of particular circumstances, where needed to protect confidentiality of employers business, reasonable, and (new) employer can show some likely harm.

Citations:

Gazette 10-Mar-1999, (1999) IRLR 19

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Employment

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.82459

Home Office v Barnes and Others: QBD 23 Nov 1994

Prison officers may not, in the course of an employment dispute, refuse to accept prisoners into the prison after they had been properly committed to the care of the prison in which they worked.

Citations:

Independent 23-Nov-1994

Statutes:

Prisons Act 1952 8

Employment, Administrative, Prisons

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81457

Hilton International Hotels (Uk) Ltd v Kaissi: EAT 7 Mar 1994

A failure to comply with the Act does not automatically terminate the contract.

Citations:

Times 07-Mar-1994, [1994] ICR 578

Statutes:

Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 33

Cited by:

CitedKwik Save Stores Limited v Greaves; Crees v Royal London Mutual Insurance Society Limited CA 20-Jan-1998
Women had taken extended maternity leave, but having followed the procedures, had been unable for illness to return to work on the day they had notified. The employer then asserted that the claimants had resigned. The EAT had confirm that they had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81386

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 were in existence might be a reason for extending the time limit.

Citations:

Gazette 10-Nov-1999, (1999) IRLR 693, [1999] ICR 1030

Cited by:

CitedG W Padley Vegetables Limited v A Theed EAT 10-Apr-2002
The respondent appealed a decision to allow the claimant to amend her claim for race discrimination. She had included details of alleged racial abuse, but claimed only unfair dismissal. No new facts were alleged, and the amendment would be out of . .
CitedSwiss 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81271

Hardie v Edinburgh City Council: OHCS 16 Feb 2000

The question of whether a supply teacher had properly been removed form the Local Authority’s list, was a matter with public law issues, and was capable of being subject to a judicial review. The authority was fulfilling a statutory duty to provide adequate education, even there was no express duty to maintain such a list. In this case also there was no continuing private contractual relationship between the applicant and the authority.

Citations:

Times 16-Feb-2000

Judicial Review, Employment, Education

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81229

GFI Group Inc v Eaglestone: QBD 29 Oct 1993

The emloyee had contracted to wait twenty weeks after leaving the employer before taking up employment with a competitor. He had a senior position and his work involved nurturing client contacts for his employer. The company now sought an order holding him to this promise.
Held: He would have been held to it, but two co-employees had left to work for the same new employer and had already completed the twenty week period. The protection was therefore no longer effective. The period of notice was varied to allow an employee to take up the new employment.

Citations:

Times 29-Oct-1993

Employment

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80805

FSS Travel and Leisure Systems Ltd v Johnson: CA 3 Sep 1998

An employee using the skills acquired working for one employer is not to be restricted in using those skills by a claim that such working skills are confidential in form of trade secrets. All factors taken into account and identification of information.

Citations:

Gazette 03-Sep-1998, [1998] IRLR 382

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80699

First Point International Ltd v Department of Trade and Industry: QBD 24 Aug 1999

A fee charged by an employment agency for an applicant to complete an appraisal form before being accepted for work through the agency was unlawful. The form was sufficiently proximate to be part of the process of ‘seeking employment’ for the offence to be committed, though it remains a question of fact in each case.

Citations:

Times 24-Aug-1999

Statutes:

Employment Agencies Act 1973 6(1)

Employment

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80566

Fitzwilliam Executive Search Ltd v Bestuur Van Het Landelijk Institut Sociale Verzekeringen Case C-202/97: ECJ 15 Mar 2000

An E101 certificate as to the payment of benefits issued by one member state with respect to the responsibility for social security payments was binding on the member state which received such a certificate. Where however there were proper doubts as to the correctness of the facts asserted as underlying the certificate it was proper to challenge the certificate., and the certificate should be re-examined and if appropriate withdrawn.

Citations:

Times 15-Mar-2000

Employment, Benefits, European

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80591

Camden and Community Services NHS Trust v Kennedy: EAT 12 Sep 1996

A solicitor’s lack of an office system for checking acknowledgements debarred him from obtaining an extension of time.

Citations:

Gazette 12-Sep-1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoCamden and Islington Community Services NHS Trust v Kennedy EAT 30-Jan-1996
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.78847

Hincks v Sense Network Ltd: QBD 15 Mar 2018

The claimant sought damages alleging that a reference given by the defendant gave a misleading impression: ‘The action raises the issue of the nature of the duty which is owed by a reference writer to the subject of the reference and, in particular, whether in discharging that duty, a reference writer should consider the adequacy and fairness of antecedent investigations upon which facts and opinions in the reference are based.’

Judges:

Lambert J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 533 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Torts – Other

Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.608674

PY v EUCAP Sahel Niger: ECFI 12 Apr 2018

External Relations – Judgment – Arbitration clause – Staff of the European Union’s international missions – Disputes concerning employment contracts – Internal investigation procedures – Protection of victims in case of denunciation of a situation of harassment – Contractual liability

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2018:181, [2018] EUECJ T-763/16

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Arbitration, Employment

Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.608646

HJ v EMA: ECFI 22 Mar 2018

(Judgment) Civil service – Temporary staff – Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract – Article 8, first paragraph, of the Conditions of Employment – Requalification of a fixed-term contract under an open-ended contract – Manifest error of assessment – Duty of care – Obligation to state reasons – Right to be heard – Appraisal report – Duty to state reasons – Manifest error of assessment

Citations:

ECLI: EU: T: 2018 168, [2018] EUECJ T-579/16

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Employment

Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.608610

Pemberton v Inwood: CA 22 Mar 2018

The appellant canon had entered into a same sex couple marriage, and the respondent, his bishop, had revoked his ‘permission to officiate’ licence. The canon now appealed from rejection of his claim for discrimination.

Judges:

Gloster VP CA, Underhill, Asplin LJJ

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 564, [2018] WLR(D) 179

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination, Ecclesiastical

Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.608353

Metcalf v Surrey County Council: EAT 8 Mar 2018

VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Whistleblowing
VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Dismissal
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Constructive dismissal
The Employment Tribunal erred in their approach to whether admitted detriments were done on the grounds of admitted protected disclosures within the meaning of section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996. They failed to apply the approach explained in Fecitt v NHS Manchester [2012] IRLR 64 of deciding whether the protected disclosure materially influenced the related detriment. Further the Employment Tribunal erred in adopting a ‘rolled up’ approach to the disclosures and failed to make findings of fact in relation to each. They failed to adopt a structured approach to deciding the claims as recommended in Blackbay Ventures Ltd v Gahir [2014] IRLR 416. They did not relate each disclosure by date and content to each detriment by date and content. Further they erred in observing that no comparators had been advanced when none were needed. These errors also affected their decisions to dismiss the constructive and automatically unfair dismissal claims. Claims remitted to a differently constituted Employment Tribunal.

Judges:

Slade DBE J

Citations:

[2018] UKEAT 0178 – 16 – 0803

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.608290

Dowokpor v Ministry of Justice: EAT 23 Mar 2018

JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Extension of time: just and equitable
The Claimant was a part-time fee-paid judicial office holder who claimed a pension following the litigation in O’Brien v Ministry of Justice. His claim was presented more than five years out of time. In deciding whether it is just and equitable to extend time for bringing a claim under the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 the Employment Judge erred in treating as conclusive, in holding to be unreasonable delay after the Claimant first learned of the possibility of bringing a claim, his view that solicitors were not negligent when advising in 2011 that his claim would be out of time. The Claimant had not been advised that he could apply to have the time limit extended on just and equitable grounds. The Employment Judge erred in failing to decide whether such ignorance was the or a reason for the delay and having regard to the advice from the solicitors whether such ignorance was reasonable (Averns v Stagecoach UKEAT/0065/08 considered). Further, the Employment Judge erred, as he had in Bowden v Ministry of Justice UKEAT/0018/17, in relying on his decision in Miller v Ministry of Justice to dismiss the application when there were material differences between the facts relevant to the Claimant and those whose applications for an extension of time were dismissed in Miller. Appeal allowed. Application remitted to a differently constituted Employment Tribunal.

Citations:

[2018] UKEAT 0156 – 17 – 2303

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.608289

Coletta v Bath Hill Court (Bournemouth) Property Management Ltd: EAT 29 Mar 2018

EAT National Minimum Wage – Unlawful Deduction – National minimum wage – unauthorised deduction from wages – section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996 – sections 9 and 39 Limitation Act 1980
The Claimant had successfully claimed that the Respondent had failed to pay him at national minimum wage rates and, at the subsequent Remedies Hearing before the ET, sought to recover payment for the sums that should have been paid, going back to the introduction of the National Minimum Wage Act, a period of some 15 years. The Respondent resisted that claim, contending that section 9 Limitation Act 1980 meant the Claimant could only recover sums going back six years. The ET agreed with the Respondent, holding that the three-month time limit for bringing an unauthorised deductions claim was concerned only with the question of the ET’s jurisdiction to determine the claim and did not amount to a period of limitation for the purposes of section 39 Limitation Act such as to disapply section 9. The Claimant appealed.

Held: allowing the appeal
Where a claim was brought under a statute that prescribed a period of limitation, section 39 Limitation Act 1980 provided that the limitations that would otherwise apply pursuant to that Act (including the six-year limitation under section 9 of the Limitation Act) would not do so. Claims for unauthorised deductions were subject to a period of limitation by virtue of subsections 23(2) and (3) Employment Rights Act 1996. The ET had been wrong to hold that this was not a period of limitation for the purposes of section 39 Limitation Act: section 39 drew no distinction between periods of limitation for jurisdictional or remedy purposes. The Claimant had brought his claim in respect of the series of deductions made from his pay within three months of the last of the deductions in the series, as prescribed by subsection 23(3) and was thus entitled to recover the sums that had been deducted from the wages properly payable to him, as provided by the National Minimum Wage Act, without the imposition of a back-stop of six years.

Judges:

Eady QC HHJ

Citations:

[2018] UKEAT 0200 – 17 – 2903

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.608288

Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti: EAT 19 Mar 2018

Practice and Procedure
The appeal and cross-appeal challenge
(i) whether the detriment claims are in time in circumstances where the grievance detriment claim failed; and
(ii) whether the grievance detriment claim was wrongly rejected on the basis of too narrow an approach to the list of issues agreed in the case.
Both appeal and cross-appeal succeeded. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that since the Claimant failed to prove that there were any actionable detrimental acts that post-dated 30 March 2014, there were no ongoing similar acts or failures to act that could form part of a series for the purposes of enlarging time under s.48(3)(a).
Further, it was not open to the Tribunal to find that there was a connection or continuum between the established and proven acts that gave rise to detriments, occurring no later than 30 March 2014, and the subsequent act relied on by the Claimant in relation to the grievance that was not proven. The proven acts that occurred no later than 30 March 2014 may have had continuing consequences in terms of the detriment experienced by the Claimant but on any view, there were no further proven acts after that date.
In the unusual circumstances of this case (given the subsequent materially changed circumstances and the Claimant’s pleaded case in relation to the grievance) the Employment Tribunal was in error in sticking slavishly as it did to issue 7a as originally formulated. That approach prevented the Employment Tribunal from discharging its core duty of determining the case in accordance with the evidence permitted to be adduced. It meant that the Employment Tribunal did not do justice between the parties.

Judges:

Simler J DBE

Citations:

[2018] UKEAT 0020 – 16 – 1903

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At EAT (1)Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti EAT 19-May-2016
EAT Victimisation Discrimination: Dismissal – Whether the Employment Tribunal’s determination that dismissal was not automatically unfair under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996 because the person who . .
At EAT (2)Jhuti v Royal Mail Group Ltd and Others EAT 31-Jul-2017
EAT (Practice and Procedure) 1. While there is no express power provided by the ETA 1996 or the 2013 Rules made under it, the appointment of a litigation friend is within the power to make a case management order . .
At CARoyal Mail Ltd v Jhuti CA 20-Oct-2017
The employee complained of her dismissal having made protected disclosures. The company said that the dismissal was for reasons of inadequate work.
Held: The company’s appeal succeeded. Subject to possible qualifications said to be irrelevant . .

Cited by:

At EAT (3)Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti SC 27-Nov-2019
‘if a person in the hierarchy of responsibility above the employee determines that she (or he) should be dismissed for a reason but hides it behind an invented reason which the decision-maker adopts, the reason for the dismissal is the hidden reason . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.608292

Ministry of Justice v Blackford (Part Time Workers): EAT 6 Mar 2018

PART TIME WORKERS
The Claimant was a Barrister and worked part-time as a Recorder. His application for extension of office so that he could continue to sit beyond his statutory retirement age of 70 was refused by the Respondent, while a Circuit Judge, accepted as being a relevant full-time comparator, was permitted to work on as a part-time judicial resource. Having found that the Claimant was treated less favourably than his full-time comparator without justification, the question of compensation was determined at a separate remedy hearing. The Respondent appealed the Decisions on both liability and remedy.
On liability, the Tribunal’s Judgment was not illustrative of any error of law or procedural irregularity such as would justify interference with it. There was ample material before the Tribunal in support of its conclusion that there was a business need for more fee-paid judiciary and that the Respondent had infringed Regulation 5 of the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 by refusing the Claimant’s application for an extension on the ground that he was a part-time worker.
The Tribunal’s Remedy Judgment was also not susceptible to challenge. Separation of oral conclusions and a Written Judgment was permissible in the circumstances that arose, which had required parties to carry out an arithmetical calculation. The compensation awarded was justified by the available material and the Tribunal had not erred in its approach to the assessment of loss.
Appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2018] UKEAT 0003 – 17 – 0603

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.608291

Fernandez Gomez v Commission: ECJ 13 Sep 2005

Civil service – Temporary staff member – Article 2 (a) of the CEOS – Admissibility – Confirmatory act – Limitation of the duration of the contract – Possibility of renewal – Anti-accumulation rule – Period completed as seconded national expert – Discretionary discretion the Commission

Citations:

[2005] EUECJ T-272/03

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

OrderFernandez Gomez v Commission ECFI 16-Sep-2003
(Order) . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.606891

V v Commission T-200/03: ECJ 21 Feb 2006

Officials – Dismissal for incompetence – Article 51 of the Staff Regulations – Manifest error of assessment – Misuse of powers – Duty of care – Rights of the defense – Proportionality – Equal treatment – Statement of reasons – Staff report – Admissibility – Interest in bringing proceedings

Citations:

[2006] EUECJ T-200/03

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

OrderV v Commission T-200/03 ECFI 28-Nov-2003
(Order) Application for interim measures. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.606862

Clotuche v Commission T-339/03: ECJ 7 Feb 2007

Official’s Reallocation of a Director as Senior Adviser Interest of the Service Equivalence of Employment Reorganization of Eurostat Action for annulment Action for damages

Citations:

[2007] EUECJ T-339/03

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

OrderClotuche v Commission T-339/03 ECFI 25-Nov-2003
(Order) . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.606863

Petronas Lubricants Italy SpA v Livio Guida: ECJ 7 Mar 2018

ECJ Area of Freedom, Security and Justice – Opinion – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Jurisdiction in respect of individual employment contracts – Employer who has been sued in the courts of the Member State where he is domiciled – Counterclaim for the employer – Determination of competent jurisdiction

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2018:163, [2018] EUECJ C-1/17 – O

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Jurisdiction, Employment

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.606017

Santoro v Comune di Valderice: ECJ 7 Mar 2018

(Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Fixed-term work – Contracts concluded with a public sector employer – Measures to penalise the misuse of fixed-term contracts – Principles of equivalence and effectiveness

Citations:

C-494/16, [2018] EUECJ C-494/16, [2017] EUECJ C-494/16_O

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Employment

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.606025

Gomes v Higher Level Care Ltd: CA 13 Mar 2018

‘This appeal raises a short but important question of law as to whether the Employment Tribunal has the power to make an award of compensation for injury to feelings where there has been a breach of the Working Time Regulations 1998’
Held: It did not.

Judges:

Kitchin, Sharp, Singh LJJ

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 418

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Damages

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.605866

County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust v Jackson and Another: EAT 2 Mar 2018

EAT Disability Discrimination – Reasonable Adjustments – The Claimant was training to be a Consultant Anaesthetist until she developed a latex allergy in October 2013; that condition was a disability for the purposes of Equality Act 2010. After meetings and enquiries, the First Appellant (the NHS body responsible for training) informed her in November 2014 that she would not be able to continue with her training because of the condition and she resigned from her employment with the Second Appellant in March 2015 and claimed that both Appellants had failed in their duty to make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to enable her to continue to work and train.
The ET upheld this claim on the basis (in effect) that it ought to have been possible somehow to continue her training within the NHS and that the Appellants had not done enough to investigate matters.
In so doing the ET had treated the NHS as a single entity and failed to have proper regard to the specific legal functions and powers of the two Appellants; as a consequence the ET had (a) imposed liability on both of them indiscriminately without any separate consideration of their respective positions, (b) decided that it would have been a reasonable adjustment on the part of both of them to provide training and work in a latex free hospital when the First Appellant had no control over any hospital and the Second Appellant had no control over those of other Trusts and no control over where the First Appellant required the Claimant to carry out her training, and (c) apparently decided that they should both make adjustments in relation to exams or other speciality training requirements when neither of them had control over these matters.
This was an error of law and the decision could not stand.

Judges:

Shanks HHJ

Citations:

[2018] UKEAT 0068 – 17 – 0203

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.605705

Really Easy Car Credit Ltd v Thompson: EAT 3 Jan 2018

EAT MATERNITY RIGHTS AND PARENTAL LEAVE – Unfair dismissal
SEX DISCRIMINATION – Pregnancy and discrimination
SEX DISCRIMINATION – Burden of proof
Automatic unfair dismissal by reason of pregnancy – section 99 Employment Rights Act 1996 and regulation 20 Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999
Pregnancy discrimination – section 18 Equality Act 2010
Burden of proof – section 136(2) Equality Act 2010
The Claimant had worked for the Respondent for a short period of time and was still within her probationary period when it was decided that she would be dismissed due to her ’emotional volatility’ and ‘failure to fit in with the Respondent’s work ethic’. The ET accepted that this decision was made on 3 August 2016, before the Respondent was aware that the Claimant was pregnant. On 4 August 2016, when arranging a meeting with the Claimant to tell her of this decision, the Respondent learned of the Claimant’s pregnancy. The meeting went ahead on 5 August 2016, when the Claimant was informed of the decision reached two days earlier and provided with a letter confirming the reasons for it. The ET found, however, that delaying the communication of the Claimant’s dismissal meant the Respondent had the opportunity to review its decision in the light of its knowledge of the Claimant’s pregnancy, which ‘clearly had a bearing on the behaviour that the Respondent considered was the last straw’. The ET found the Claimant had therefore ‘proved facts sufficient to reverse the burden of proof’ and the Respondent had failed to show that the dismissal was in no sense whatsoever related to the Claimant’s pregnancy; it upheld the Claimant’s complaints of pregnancy discrimination and automatic unfair dismissal by reason of pregnancy. The Respondent appealed.

Held: allowing the appeal
The ET had failed to apply the correct legal test in this case; it had effectively found the Respondent liable by omission – the ET apparently considering that the Respondent ought to have re-visited its decision to dismiss the Claimant (taken on 3 August, without any knowledge of her pregnancy) once it learned she was pregnant. The ET took the view that once the Claimant had told the Respondent she was pregnant ‘It must have been obvious . . that the Claimant’s attendance at hospital and her emotional state were pregnancy related’. That was not the correct legal test; the ET had been required to determine whether the Claimant’s pregnancy itself had been the reason or principal reason for her dismissal or whether the decision to dismiss had been because of her pregnancy. The ET had also erred in concluding that the answer to this question was provided by the shifting burden of proof. It had made no finding of fact, further to its finding as to the decision taken on 3 August, such as would establish a prima facie case and shift the burden to the Respondent. Moreover, the ET had failed to consider any explanation provided by the Respondent; had it engaged with the Respondent’s case, it would further have been apparent to the ET this was directed to the claim as put by the Claimant, which was not the case being considered by the ET itself.

Judges:

Eady QC HHJ

Citations:

[2018] UKEAT 0197 – 17 – 0301

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.605704

Kocur v Angard Staffing Solutions Ltd and Another: EAT 23 Feb 2018

Agency Workers – The Tribunal erred in finding that there had been compliance with Regulation 5(1) of the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 in circumstances where the agency worker was only entitled to 28 days’ leave and 30 minutes paid rest breaks, whereas the hirer’s employees were entitled to 30.5 days leave and one-hour paid rest breaks. These shortfalls in entitlement could not be compensated for by the payment of an enhanced hourly rate.
The Tribunal did not err, however, in finding that there was no requirement to provide an agency worker with precisely the same number of working hours as the hirer’s employees. Such a requirement would deprive the relationship between hirer and agency/agency worker of the flexibility considered important by the Directive.

Citations:

[2018] UKEAT 0181 – 17 – 2302

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.605647

Scranage v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council: EAT 19 Feb 2018

Practice and Procedure – Review – Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke
Reconsideration – new evidence – Ladd v Marshall – adequacy of reasons
The Claimant had applied for a reconsideration of an earlier Employment Tribunal Judgment dismissing his claims. His application was made on ‘new evidence’ grounds; specifically he relied on a Judgment of the Crown Court in subsequent criminal proceedings which raised questions as to the credibility of two of the managers who had initiated the disciplinary investigation against the Claimant that had ultimately led to his dismissal by a different manager. The ET rejected the reconsideration application, holding that the new material could not have had an important influence on the original hearing. The Claimant appealed.

Held: dismissing the appeal
The ET had been entitled to conclude that the new evidence would not have had an important influence on the original hearing given that it did not impact upon the decision to dismiss, which had been taken by a different manager, who was not tainted by the Crown Court’s findings.

Citations:

[2018] UKEAT 0032 – 17 – 1902

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.605651

Leeks v Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust: EAT 27 Feb 2018

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Case management
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke
The argument that in cases involving a disabled person where an ET had failed to make a reasonable adjustment by extending the time for complying with a procedural (case management) Order or postponing or adjourning a hearing fell to be considered by the EAT making its own decision as to what was proportionate, fair and just and not by a conventional appellate scrutiny as to whether there was an error of law was rejected. This was not the inevitable consequence of the judgment of the Supreme Court in R (Osborn) v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61, [2014] 1 AC 1115 as argued in an article by Ms Claire Darwin of counsel starting at page 423 of the Industrial Law Journal 2016 and accepted (obiter dictum) by the EAT in Rackham v NHS Professionals Ltd UKEAT/0110/15/LA and by the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland in the case of Galo v Bombardier Aerospace UK [2016] NICA 25.
In the civil jurisdiction the need to take account of fundamental rights has been recognised as part of the exercise of a judicial discretion as to whether or not a case should be adjourned or a judgment set aside (see Bank of Scotland plc v Pereira [2011] 1 WLR 2391, Levy v Ellis-Carr [2012] EWHC 63 Ch, Decker v Hopcraft [2015] EWHC 1170 QB, Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland v Jaffery [2012] EWHC 734, Forrester Ketley v Brent [2012] EWCA Civ 324, TBO Investments Ltd v Mohun-Smith and Another [2016] EWCA Civ 403, [2016] 1 WLR 2919 and Emojevbe v Secretary of State for Transport [2017] EWCA Civ 934); likewise in the jurisdiction of the ET (see Teinaz v London Borough of Wandsworth [2002] EWCA Civ 1040, [2002] ICR 1471).
But this need to take account of proportionality in respect of the impact of decisions on those suffering a disability did not lead to a different approach to appellate scrutiny and whilst expressing the current approach as ‘Wednesbury unreasonableness’ might not always be understood as requiring a thorough scrutiny as to whether there had been an error of law, the alternative proposed of this Tribunal making its own decision as to what was fair and just was not acceptable not least because of the statutory jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Consequently, O’Cathail v Transport for London [2013] EWCA Civ 21, [2013] ICR 614 and Riley v Crown Prosecution Service [2013] EWCA Civ 951, [2013] IRLR 966 have not been overruled and remain binding on this Tribunal.
The judgment of a division of the Tribunal in Pye v Queen Mary University of London UKEAT/0151/15/MC would be followed in preference to the obiter dictum in Rackham and the decision in the NICA in Galo whilst providing admirable guidance and undoubtedly correct in the result, in so far as the approach to appellate scrutiny differed from that in Teinaz and O’Cathail, was an erroneous decision of an appellate Tribunal hearing appeals from a Tribunal of first instance and thus of equivalent status to this Tribunal and would not be followed; Lock and Another v British Gas Trading Ltd (No. 2) UKEAT/0189/15/BA, [2016] IRLR 316 applied.

Citations:

[2018] UKEAT 0050 – 16 – 2702

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.605648