Tag: Employment

Ashraf v Francis W Birkett and Sons Ltd: EAT 23 May 2000

Citations:

[2000] UKEAT 244 – 00 – 2305

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Ashraf v Birkett EAT 14-Jan-2000
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Ashraf v Francis W Birkett and Sons Ltd EAT 20-Jul-2001
The employee had been selected for redundancy. He claimed both race and disability discrimination. He appealed a rejection of race discrimination claim. He said that the Meek case required the decision to deal with any significant of conflict of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.265082

Tyrrel v Transport and General Workers Union: EAT 31 Mar 2000

Citations:

[2000] EAT 1422 – 99 – 3103

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Tyrrell v Transport and General Workers Union EAT 1-Oct-1998
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Her Majesty’s Attorney General v Tyrrell EAT 4-Jun-2003
Application for restriction of proceedings order – Practice and Procedure – Split hearings . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.264988

Sullivan-Davies v Space Enterprise Ltd: EAT 4 Feb 2000

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Contributory fault.

Judges:

His Honour Judge H Wilson

Citations:

EAT/560/99, [2000] UKEAT 560 – 99 – 0402

Links:

EAT, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Sullivan-Davies v Space Enterprise Ltd EAT 26-Jul-1999
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.264843

Wheeler and Another v Durham County Council: EAT 17 Feb 2000

Citations:

[2000] UKEAT 839 – 99 – 1702

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Wheeler and Another v Durham County Council EAT 30-Nov-2000
. .
At EAT (1) – Wheeler and Another v Durham County Council CA 23-May-2001
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.264847

Unwin v Sackville School and Another: EAT 1 Feb 2000

The question is whether, a full Employment Tribunal having been empanelled to hear and determine the appellant, Mrs Unwin’s complaint of victimisation contrary to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Chairman of that Employment Tribunal, Mr Rich, was entitled to strike out the complaint under Rule 13(2)(e) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure and thereafter to make a consequent costs order against the appellant, sitting alone.

Judges:

Peter Clarke HHJ

Citations:

[2000] UKEAT 1068 – 98 – 0102

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Sex Discrimination Act 1975

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Unwin v Sackville School and Another EAT 30-Jul-1997
. .
See Also – Unwin v Sackville School and Another EAT 1-Mar-1998
. .
See Also – Unwin v Sackville School and Another EAT 15-Dec-1999
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.264845

Ashraf v Birkett: EAT 14 Jan 2000

Citations:

[2000] UKEAT 772 – 99 – 1401

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Ashraf v Francis W Birkett and Sons Ltd EAT 23-May-2000
. .
See Also – Ashraf v Francis W Birkett and Sons Ltd EAT 20-Jul-2001
The employee had been selected for redundancy. He claimed both race and disability discrimination. He appealed a rejection of race discrimination claim. He said that the Meek case required the decision to deal with any significant of conflict of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.264711

Salvesen v Simons: EAT 22 Oct 1993

Lord Coulsfield referred to the moral dimension applicable where an employee and employer sought to evade taxes by pretending tat the employee was in fact self-employed: ‘It is not necessarily inequitable that persons who seek to take advantage out of the tax system, misguidedly or otherwise, should not be entitled to be treated as if they were employed under a normal contract of employment.’

Judges:

Lord Coulsfield

Citations:

[1993] UKEAT 451 – 93 – 2210, [1994] IRLR 52, [1994] ICR 409

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Daymond v Enterprise South Devon EAT 6-Jun-2007
Underhill J said: ‘where an employee has made a positive choice to operate arrangements which have the effect of depriving the Revenue of payment to which it is entitled, contracts giving effect to those arrangements will be unlawful notwithstanding . .
Cited – Enfield Technical Services Ltd v Payne and Another CA 22-Apr-2008
The appellant company appealed dismissal of their defence to a claim for unfair dismissal that the employment contract was tainted with illegality. The EAT had heard two cases with raised the question of the effect on unfair dismissal claims of . .
Cited – Enfield Technical Services Ltd v Payne and Another CA 22-Apr-2008
The appellant company appealed dismissal of their defence to a claim for unfair dismissal that the employment contract was tainted with illegality. The EAT had heard two cases with raised the question of the effect on unfair dismissal claims of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.264561

Look Ahead Housing and Care Ltd v Bola Akinde: EAT 31 Jan 2008

EAT Practice and Procedure: Perversity
Race discrimination: Inferring discrimination / Comparison
The Respondent was dismissed from her post as a night hostel worker after abusing a resident. She claimed, inter alia, race discrimination. The Tribunal upheld the claim.
Held: the decision was not Meek compliant and was perverse.

Citations:

[2008] UKEAT 0130 – 07 – 3101

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.264281

Royal Mail Letters and others v Muhammad: EAT 20 Dec 2007

EAT Practice and Procedure
Whether Claimant complied with requirements of Section 32 of the Employment Act 2002 and paragraph 6, Schedule 2 of the Employment Act (Dispute Regulations) 2004.

Judges:

Pugsley J

Citations:

[2007] UKEAT 0392 – 07 – 2012

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Act 2002 32, Employment Act (Dispute Resolution) Regulations 2004

Citing:

Cited – Canary Wharf Management Limited v Edebi EAT 3-Mar-2006
EAT Practice and Procedure – striking-out/dismissal
Grievance procedures. Were they complied with? Held not to be in the circumstances of this case. Observations on what counts as compliance and how . .
Cited – Odoemelam v Whittington Hospital NHS Trust EAT 6-Feb-2007
EAT Statutory grievance procedures
Need for grievance to identify that complaint is one of racial discrimination – application to claims against employees as well as to claims against their employers. . .
Cited – Shergold v Fieldway Medical Centre EAT 5-Dec-2005
The claimant had submitted a grievance complaining in general terms of the way in which she had been treated by a manager. She did not, however, refer to a particular incident relied on in her pleading as one of the two ‘last straw’ incidents that . .
Cited – Martin v Class Security Installations Ltd EAT 16-Mar-2006
EAT Unfair Dismissal
Chairman held that no statutory grievance of constructive unfair dismissal had been raised. Was he correct on the facts?
There is compliance ‘if the employers, on a fair reading of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.263994

Storer v British Gas Plc: EAT 16 Oct 1998

The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for unfair dismissal and similar, the decision being made that the applications were out of time. He also complained that the hearing had effectively heard been in private.
Held: No arguable point of law had been demonstrated and the appeal failed.

Judges:

Peter Clark HHJ

Citations:

[1998] UKEAT 153 – 98 – 1610

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 164

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Storer v British Gas plc CA 25-Feb-2000
An industrial tribunal hearing conducted behind the locked doors of the chairman’s office was not held in public, even if, in fact, no member of the public was prevented from attending. The obligation to sit in public was fundamental, and the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.206834

Pitmans Trustees Limited, Whitehead, Bracey-Wright v The Telecommunications Group Plc: ChD 10 Feb 2004

Judges:

The Vice-Chancellor

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 181 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Agricultural Horticultural and Forestry Industry Training Board v Aylesbury Mushrooms 1972
The Secretary of State proposed to introduce new regulations for the training of agricultural workers. It sent a notice inviting representations from a body representing the mushroom growing industry, but the letter was not received. The regulation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Financial Services, Employment, Administrative

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.193413

J P Ticktum and Shranks Solicitors v Bannister: EAT 5 Jul 2007

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Compensation / Mitigation of Loss
Compensation for loss of earnings for unfair dismissal awarded from dismissal to hearing and 6 months thereafter. Appeal based on lack of reasons for rejecting Respondent’s case as to mitigation and future loss. Held that the reasons, although sparse, were sufficient. In the absence of a perversity challenge, appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2007] UKEAT 0120 – 07 – 0507

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.262309

A Blitz v Equant Integration Services Ltd (T/A Orange Business Services): EAT 2 Nov 2007

EAT Disability discrimination: Less favourable treatment / Harassment
Practice and Procedure: Application/claim / Amendment
The Tribunal applied wrong tests in respect of disability related discrimination. On the application of the right tests, based on the Tribunal’s findings of fact, its conclusions were clearly correct in respect of two claims, but three claims were remitted to the same Tribunal for fresh consideration of unresolved issues, primarily of detriment and justification. The three stage test explained (paragraphs 32 to 35).
In regard to harassment, the Tribunal did not originally reach a decision, and did so after a Bu rns/Barke referral, when a review was refused: the decision not to review, by reference to primarily s3B(2) of the DDA, was upheld.
The Respondent’s cross appeal was allowed, since the Appellant’s bonus claim, only referred to in closing written submissions exchanged after close of evidence, was plainly not pleaded and out of time and no application to amend was sought, and it should not have been permitted.
A firm recommendation is given to employment tribunals to allow the opportunity for some oral argument where closing written submissions are exchanged. Had the Tribunal done so in this case, most of the problems raised by the appeal and the cross-appeal would not have arisen (paragraph 88).

Judges:

Burton J

Citations:

[2007] UKEAT 0259 – 07 – 0211

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Shergold v Fieldway Medical Centre EAT 5-Dec-2005
The claimant had submitted a grievance complaining in general terms of the way in which she had been treated by a manager. She did not, however, refer to a particular incident relied on in her pleading as one of the two ‘last straw’ incidents that . .

Cited by:

Cited – Cumbria Probation Board v Collingwood EAT 28-May-2008
EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
Disability / Disability related discrimination / Reasonable adjustments
JURISDICTIONAL POINTS
>2002 Act and pre-action requirements
The date of disability is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.261965

Johns v Solent SD Ltd: EAT 30 Oct 2007

EAT Practice and Procedure: Postponement or stay
Age Discrimination
Stay of proceedings where age discrimination is alleged. There is no basis for a valid claim in current UK law, but a case (Heyday) has been referred to the ECJ, which if successful would provide the Claimant with a valid claim. Should the claim be stayed pending the ECJ decision (the result of which should not be prejudged by the English Courts) or should the claim be struck out. Appeal allowed. Stay granted.

Citations:

[2007] UKEAT 0449 – 07 – 3010

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Appeal From – Johns v Solent SD Ltd CA 12-Jun-2008
The court considered whether it was proper to issue a stay of proceedings to await a judgement in the EJ on a related issue. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.261964

United Grand Lodge of England v Daley: EAT 28 Nov 2007

EAT Unfair dismissal – Contributory fault / Polkey deduction
The Claimant was found to be unfairly dismissed. The Tribunal found that the employer had not acted reasonably under section 98(4) and made no Polkey and/or contribution deduction. The EAT found the Employment Tribunal did not deal adequately with Polkey and/or contributory fault issues.

Judges:

Puhsley HHJ

Citations:

[2007] UKEAT 0229 – 07 – 2811

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.261798

Govia Thameslink Railway Ltd v The Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen: QBD 2 Jun 2016

‘GTR, a train operating company, applies for an interim injunction to restrain ASLEF, the train drivers’ union, from inducing train drivers who are employed by GTR on the Gatwick Express and Southern Services to breach their contracts of employment by taking part in industrial action consisting of strike action or action short of a strike.’

Judges:

Supperstone J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 1320 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.565542

McClintock v Department of Constitutional Affairs: EAT 31 Oct 2007

The claimant had resigned as a magistrate after a refusal of his requirement that he not be asked to sit on adoption applications involving same sex couples.
Held: The request was an abdication of the duties of a magistrate, and his claim failed.
EAT Religion or belief
The appellant was a Justice of the Peace. He sat on the Family Panel which, inter alia, places children for adoption. He objected to the possibility that he might be required to place a child with a same sex couple. The reason he gave was that he considered that there was insufficient evidence that this was in the child’s best interests and he felt that children should not be treated like guinea pigs in the name of politically correct legislation.
He asked to be relieved from hearing cases which might raise these issues. Representatives of the respondent refused to allow this and he resigned from the Family Panel. He complained that this was both direct and indirect discrimination and harassment, contrary to the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003.
The Tribunal found that on the facts there was no unlawful conduct of any kind. He had not indicated that his objections were rooted in any religious or philosophical belief. There was in fact no direct or indirect discrimination for religious or philosophical reasons, nor any evidence of harassment. Even if there were a criterion adversely impacting on the appellant, the respondent was justified in requiring him to carry out the full duties of the office in accordance with his judicial oath.
The EAT rejected the appeal. The case was dismissed largely on the facts, but in addition the Tribunal was fully entitled to find that any indirect discrimination was justified.

Judges:

Elias J, P

Citations:

[2007] UKEAT 0223 – 07 – 3110, Times 05-Dec-2007, [2008] IRLR 29

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – McFarlane v Relate Avon Ltd EAT 30-Nov-2009
EAT RELIGION OR BELIEF DISCRIMINATION
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reason for dismissal
Christian counsellor dismissed by Relate for failing to give an unequivocal commitment to counsel same-sex couples.
Cited – Grainger Plc and Others v Nicholson EAT 3-Nov-2009
EAT RELIGION OR BELIEF DISCRIMINATION
A belief in man-made climate change, and the alleged resulting moral imperatives, is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.261546

Alford House and others v McDonald: EAT 11 Oct 2007

EAT Practice and Procedure: 2002 Act and Pre-action Requirements
Various questions relating to s.32 of the Employment Act 2002 and the Employment Act 2002 (Dispute Resolution) Regulations 2004.
Chairman’s reasoning wrong in the light of the subsequent decision of the EAT in London Borough of Hounslow v Miller. However, for other reasons in most respects the claim was not barred by section 32.

Citations:

[2007] UKEAT 0224 – 07 – 1110

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Act 2002 32, Employment Act 2002 (Dispute Resolution) Regulations 2004

Citing:

Cited – London Borough of Hounslow v Miller EAT 28-Mar-2007
EAT Contract of Employment -and- Unfair Dismissal

The employee lodged two complaints, one of disability discrimination and one of unfair dismissal.

Tribunal Chairman stayed the complaint of disability . .
Cited – Shergold v Fieldway Medical Centre EAT 5-Dec-2005
The claimant had submitted a grievance complaining in general terms of the way in which she had been treated by a manager. She did not, however, refer to a particular incident relied on in her pleading as one of the two ‘last straw’ incidents that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.261536

Waller v Bromsgrove District Council: EAT 23 May 2007

Practice and Procedure – Time for appealing
Appeal against Registrar’s refusal to extend time – Appellant submits that ‘Abdelghafar approach’ requires modification in the light of the introduction of rule 2A (over-riding objective) – Submission rejected.

Citations:

[2007] UKEAT 0019 – 07 – 2305

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.259804

Wolverhampton University v Elbeltagi: EAT 13 Jul 2007

EAT Time Limits – Effective date of termination
Time Limits – Reasonable practicability
The Tribunal found that the employee had demonstrated that it was not reasonably practicable for him to present his claim for unfair dismissal in the three month period because his appeal was still proceeding and there were ongoing negotiations about a consensual ‘resignation’; but these processes ended on 7 October and the period elapsed on 10 October. Held that the Tribunal erred in not considering separately the period from 7 October to 10 October in light of the changed circumstances. See The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc v Theobald (EAT/0444/06 10 January 2007). Remitted to same tribunal to consider that period.

Judges:

Burke QC HHJ

Citations:

[2007] UKEAT 0167 – 07 – 1307

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.259408

Wood Group Engineering (North Sea) Ltd v Robertson: EAT 6 Jul 2007

Contract of Employment – whether Claimant Employee – Agency Worker
Claimant worked for the respondents as an agency worker for periods prior to a contract in which they accepted she was their employee. Date of dismissal from that employment was less than a year from commencement. Whether the claimant had been an employee whilst working as an agency worker, so as to have had continuous service of over a year prior to dismissal. Employment Tribunal held that she had. Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld an appeal against that finding.

Judges:

Lady Smith

Citations:

[2007] UKEAT 0081 – 06 – 0607

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258772

Minister Voor Vereemdelingenzaken en Integratie v RNG Eind: ECJ 5 Jul 2007

ECJ Freedom of movement for persons – Workers Right of residence for a family member who is a third-country national – Return of the worker to the Member State of which he is a national – Obligation for the worker’s Member State of origin to grant a right of residence to the family member Whether there is such an obligation where the worker does not carry on any effective and genuine activities

Citations:

C-291/05, [2007] EUECJ C-291/05, [2007] ECR I-10719

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Pedro v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 14-Dec-2009
The claimant, an EU national, came to the UK to join her son. He had worked but became dependent on benefits. She sought payment of the State Pension.
Held: A refusal to pay the pension would dissuade workers from moving around within the EU, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258196

Galaxy Showers Ltd v Wilson: EAT 10 Nov 2005

The EAT upheld the view of an ET that a resignation letter giving notice of termination was a sufficient compliance with the requirement to set out the grievance in writing. If an employee had raised a grievance about alleged misbehaviour by the employer, it would usually at least be quite unnecessary to raise a further grievance at the point of resignation.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Langstaff

Citations:

[2005] UKEAT 0525 – 05 – 1011, UKEAT/0525/05

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Lipscombe v The Forestry Commission CA 9-May-2007
The claimant had asserted constructive dismissal. He succeeded on appeal to the EAT, and the employer now appealed. He had asserted bullying by his managers, and then was absent from work after developing depression. The commission said that he was . .
Cited – The Highland Council v TGWU and Unison EAT 3-Jun-2008
EAT EQUAL PAY ACT: Equal value

Equal Pay claims. Whether letters sent to local authority employers by unions prior to coming into force of the statutory grievance procedures met the requirements of regulation . .
Cited – BUPA Care Homes v Cann; Spillett v Tesco Stores EAT 31-Jan-2006
EAT Practice and Procedure – 2002 Act and Pre-Action Requirements; and Amendment
Whether section 32(4) EA 2002 – original time limit – restricts time for bringing a DDA claim to the primary 3 months period, . .
Cited – Step In Time Ltd v Fox and Another EAT 3-Nov-2008
EAT STATUTORY DISCIPLINE AND GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES
Whether infringed
The employment judge held that the two claimants had complied with the statutory grievance procedures and that the Tribunal had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.257640

Arnold Clark Automobiles Ltd v Glass: EAT 7 Jun 2007

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Preliminary issues
2002 Act and Pre-action Requirements
The employee lodged a claim for unfair dismissal outside the statutory three month time limit. The Chairman held that when the normal time limit expired, the employee had reasonable grounds to believe that a dismissal procedure was being followed and therefore the claim was in time pursuant to reg. 15 of the Employment Act 2002 (Dispute Resolution) Regulations 2004. The EAT held that in reaching that conclusion she had misdirected herself. Case remitted to a fresh tribunal.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Elias (President)

Citations:

[2007] UKEAT 0095 – 06 – 0706, UKEATS/0095/06/MT

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Statutes:

Employment Act 2002 (Dispute Resolution) Regulations 2004 15

Employment

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.253729

Smith v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd: EAT 24 Apr 2007

EAT Disability Discrimination – Reasonable adjustments
Where a Claimant submits a grievance relating to a continuing discriminatory act, s32 Employment Act 2002, and Schedule 2 para 6 do not require him to serve a further grievance in respect of the same continuing act. The Employment Tribunal was also in error in failing to hold that the duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 arose when the Claimant became permanently unfit for his existing work.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Serota

Citations:

[2007] UKEAT 0047 – 07 – 2404, UKEAT/0047/07

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Statutes:

Employment Act 2002 32, Disability Discrimination Act 1995

Cited by:

Cited – Step In Time Ltd v Fox and Another EAT 3-Nov-2008
EAT STATUTORY DISCIPLINE AND GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES
Whether infringed
The employment judge held that the two claimants had complied with the statutory grievance procedures and that the Tribunal had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.251665

Liu v the Association of University Teachers: EAT 7 Feb 2007

EAT Circumstances in which a claimant who had not appeared at the full hearing of his appeal before the Employment Appeal Tribunal sought and was granted review of order dismissing his appeal. Respondents’ application for expenses granted in part on grounds of unreasonable conduct by the claimant.

Judges:

The Honourable Lady Smith

Citations:

[2007] UKEAT 0072 – 05 – 0702, UKEATS/0072/05

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Employment

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.251286

Intercall Conferencing Services Ltd v Steer: QBD 15 Mar 2007

The claimant company sought an interim injunction to prevent the defendant, a former employee, from working for a competitor in breach of a clause in his contract and from divulging any confidential information. The defendant said that the non-competition clause was too wide, but was content not to divulge any confidential material. He had been a senior employee with full access to a wide range of systems information. The clause required him not to be employed by a competitor for six months. There was no geographical limit.
Held: The defendant did have confidential information. The clause was necessary because ‘ difficulties in identifying what is and what is not confidential information may mean that a non-competition clause is the most satisfactory term of restraint. The six month period seems to me to be appropriate and the words ‘which are in competition with the business carried on by the Company’ are reasonable. The capacity in which the employee in fact works for the new employer cannot in itself be decisive. If he possesses confidential information which it is appropriate to protect and there is a risk that in the course of his new work the duty of confidentiality may be breached, it matters not in precisely what capacity he is to work.’ The court must last consider still whether it should exercise its discretion to grant the injunction. Though the defendant would suffer loss, if the final injunction was refused, he could be adequately compensated in damages.

Judges:

Nelson J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 519 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd HL 5-Feb-1975
Interim Injunctions in Patents Cases
The plaintiffs brought proceedings for infringement of their patent. The proceedings were defended. The plaintiffs obtained an interim injunction to prevent the defendants infringing their patent, but they now appealed its discharge by the Court of . .
Cited – TFS 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 . .
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 – Brake Brothers Limited v Ungless QBD 2004
The court considered the law relating to post employment restrictive covenants. Gloster J said: ‘(1) Covenants in Restraint of Trade are prima-facie unlawful and accordingly are ‘to be treated with suspicion’ see per Laddie J in Countrywide Assured . .
Cited – TFS 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Contract

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.250622

Premier Foods Plc v Garner: EAT 20 Mar 2007

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reasonableness of dismissal; Procedural fairness/automatically unfair dismissal
Wide-ranging grounds of appeal concerning the standard DDP, automatic unfair dismissal, unfair dismissal and section 98A(2). No error of law in the Tribunal’s reasons. In particular, Tribunal entitled to conclude that where the employer, having decided to impose a final written warning and not to dismiss the employee, later again contemplated dismissing the employee, it should again have complied with the standard DDP.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Richardson

Citations:

[2007] UKEAT 0389 – 06 – 2003, UKEAT/0389/06

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Citing:

Cited – Alexander and Hatherley v Bridgen Enterprises Ltd EAT 12-Apr-2006
The company made selections for redundancy, but failed to give the appellants information about how the scoring system had resulted in the figures allocated. The calculations left their representative unable to challenge them on appeal. The . .
Cited – J Sainsbury Ltd v Hitt; Orse Sainsburys Supermarkets Limited v Hitt CA 18-Oct-2002
Reasobaleness of Investigation Judged Objectively
The employer appealed against a decision that it had unfairly dismissed the respondent. The majority of the Employment Tribunal had decided that the employers had not carried out a reasonable investigation into the employee’s alleged misconduct . .
Cited – Shergold v Fieldway Medical Centre EAT 5-Dec-2005
The claimant had submitted a grievance complaining in general terms of the way in which she had been treated by a manager. She did not, however, refer to a particular incident relied on in her pleading as one of the two ‘last straw’ incidents that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.250314

Gibbs (T/A Jarlands Financial Services) v Harris: EAT 27 Feb 2007

EAT Practice and Procedure – Preliminary issues
The Employment Tribunal was wrong to conclude that an ET1 could constitute a written grievance for the purpose of satisfying section 32 of the Employment Act 2002.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Wilkie

Citations:

[2007] UKEAT 0023 – 07 – 2702, UKEAT/0023/07/RN

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Statutes:

Employment Act 2002 32, Employment Act 2002 (Disputes Procedures) Regulations 2004

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Shergold v Fieldway Medical Centre EAT 5-Dec-2005
The claimant had submitted a grievance complaining in general terms of the way in which she had been treated by a manager. She did not, however, refer to a particular incident relied on in her pleading as one of the two ‘last straw’ incidents that . .

Cited by:

Cited – Step In Time Ltd v Fox and Another EAT 3-Nov-2008
EAT STATUTORY DISCIPLINE AND GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES
Whether infringed
The employment judge held that the two claimants had complied with the statutory grievance procedures and that the Tribunal had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.249948

N Barrosso, M Mayou, A Gray, D Young v C Fahy: EAT 31 Jan 2007

EAT Sex Discrimination – Vicarious liability.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Burke Qc

Citations:

[2007] UKEAT 0558 – 06 – 3101, UKEAT/0558/06/DA

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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.
Cited – Moroak T/A Blake Envelopes v Cromie EAT 19-Apr-2005
moroak_cromieEAT2005
EAT Response lodged at the Employment Tribunal 44 minutes late and the Employment Tribunal ordered that the Respondent could take no part in the proceedings and refused to review that order on the basis it had no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.249945

McCall v Northern Rail Ltd: EAT 25 Jan 2007

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reasonableness of dismissal
Practice and Procedure – 2002 Act and pre-action requirements
The Respondent dismissed the Claimant for three reasons. On appeal, two of the most serious fell away but the reason for dismissal remained the same. At the Employment Tribunal it was held that the procedure was unfair, but was rescued by the Employment Rights Act 1996 s98A(2). On appeal it was held that the relevant managers had never turned their minds to whether they would have dismissed for the one offence alone, and could not invoke s98A(2) by mere assertion. Employment Tribunal reversed.

Judges:

McMullen QC J

Citations:

[2007] UKEAT 0504 – 06 – 2501

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Alexander and Hatherley v Bridgen Enterprises Ltd EAT 12-Apr-2006
The company made selections for redundancy, but failed to give the appellants information about how the scoring system had resulted in the figures allocated. The calculations left their representative unable to challenge them on appeal. The . .
Cited – Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen v Brady EAT 31-Mar-2006
The reason adduced by the union for the dismissal of the climant was found by the Tribunal on the facts not to be the true reason for dismissal, the true reason being the union executive committee’s political antipathy to Mr Brady.
Held: It . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.249947

BMI Healthcare Ltd v Spaulding and Another: EAT 16 Jan 2007

EAT Practice and Procedure – Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity
The judgment of the Employment Tribunal was set aside for not only did it fail to comply with any part of rule 30(6), but it failed to give any account of the facts, issues, submissions, law and reasons for the findings. Remitted to a fresh Employment Tribunal and subsequent remedy judgment set aside.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Mcmullen Qc

Citations:

[2007] UKEAT 0551 – 06 – 1601, UKEAT/0551/06

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.249946

Basingstoke Press Ltd v Clarke: EAT 9 Jan 2007

Practice and Procedure – Appearance/Response; 2002 Act and Pre-action Requirements; Chairman alone
CPR part 2.8 provides a clear illustration of the rule on counting the 28 days which must elapse between a grievance and a claim. The earliest date following a grievance on a Monday is the Tuesday, four weeks later, leaving 28 clear days when neither a grievance nor a claim is made.
A Chairman may sit alone on an unfair dismissal claim when it is ‘not resisted’ and this includes when a Respondent is ordered to play no part in the proceedings because it did not submit a response. Even if the putative Respondent seeks to defend the case, it is not allowed to resist and the Chairman may sit alone.

Citations:

[2007] UKEAT 0375 – 06 – 0901

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.249618

Swindon Borough Council and Another v MBA: EAT 29 Jan 2007

EAT Race Discrimination – Direct – Finding of direct and indirect discrimination – adequacy of reasoning on each issue. Case remitted to freshly constituted Employment Tribunal.
EAT Race discrimination – Direct/ Indirect/ Inferring discrimination
Finding of direct and indirect discrimination – adequacy of reasoning on each issue. Case remitted to freshly constituted Employment Tribunal.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Bean

Citations:

[2007] UKEAT 0470 – 06 – 2901, UKEAT/0470/06

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.248963

SCA Packaging Ltd v HM Customs and Excise: ChD 22 Feb 2007

The court was asked whether termination payments made to employees on redundancy and which had been calculated according to unexpired notice periods were liable to Schedule E income tax and national insurance. The calculations were based upon a memorandum of agreement between the company and the trades union.
Held: The memorandum could not sensibly be thought to abrogate an employee’s rights. Employees were entitled by their contracts and the memorandum to receive payments in lieu of notice. The payments made were as debts due under the contracts, and were emoluments. The taxpayers’ appeal was dismissed.

Judges:

Lightman J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 270 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 19

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Income Tax

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.248997

Bromley v H and J Quick Ltd: EAT 28 Jul 1987

The section required a study which necessitated the evaluation of both the complainant’s work and that of her male comparator. It was not good enough that the bench mark jobs had been evaluated if there had been no evaluation of the claimant’s and her comparators’ jobs in the process. In this sense the use of the description ‘analytical’ was not a gloss on the statutory provision but a convenient way of summarising the need for the study to value in terms of demand under various relevant headings, each worker’s job – not just some. It had to be shown not only that a job evaluation scheme had been carried out but also that it was a scheme which fulfilled the necessary criteria.

Citations:

[1987] UKEAT 97 – 87 – 2807, [1988] 2 CMLR 468, [1988] ICR 47, [1987] IRLR 456

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Equal Pay Act 1970 1(2)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.248981

Power v Regent Security Services Ltd: EAT 29 Jan 2007

EAT Transfer of Undertakings – Acquired rights directive
The appellant was employed to manage a particular estate under a contract which stipulated that his contractual retirement age was 60. The part of the business in which he was employed was transferred. He was in a unique position; no-one else was transferred. He agreed with the respondent transferee to a change in his contract which stipulated that the contractual retirement age would be 65. There was no other contractual alteration. There was also evidence that he had been told that he would not in fact be retired until the property for which he was responsible was redeveloped, and that this would be sometime after his 60th birthday. In fact the respondent sought to compel him to retire on his 60th birthday. He brought a claim for unfair dismissal, but the respondent contended that 60 was the normal retirement age and since he had reached that age he was precluded from pursuing that claim by section 109 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The appellant contended that the normal retirement age was 65, either because of the contractual variation, or because even if the contractual retirement age was 60, he had an expectation that he would not be retired until redevelopment, and that since this did not identify any specific age, the default age of 65 should apply in accordance with section 109. The respondent alleged that the contractual variation was invalid because it was a change made by reason of the transfer; and that for an employee in a unique position, the normal retirement age was the contractual retirement age. The Employment Tribunal accepted both these submissions.
On appeal, the EAT accepted that if the variation were void, then the Tribunal was right to find that the normal retirement age was the contractual retirement age and had not been altered by any contrary expectation. However, the EAT held that the contractual retirement age had been varied to 65, and that there was no reason why that should not be enforced by the employee. The variation was for his benefit, and the case of Daddy’s Dance Hall [1988] IRLR 355 did not prevent such a variation being valid and effective. Nor was it necessary to construe regulation 12 of the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations so as deny the appellant the right to rely on this change. A transferee employer, unlike an employee, cannot invoke either the case law of the ECJ or regulation 12 to escape contractual obligations he has voluntarily undertaken, even where they are the result of a variation in the contract which is by reason of the transfer. In the event, the appeal was allowed.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Elias (President)

Citations:

[2007] UKEAT 0499 – 06 – 2901, UKEAT/0499/06

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regent Security Services Ltd v Power CA 20-Nov-2007
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.248275

Kettle Produce Ltd v Ward: EAT 8 Nov 2006

EAT Sex discrimination – Comparison
When a male manager entered the women’s toilets and shouted at a woman on her break, the correct question which should be asked is this: would the Respondent, in the form of a female manager, with the same robust management style as this manager, treat a male cleaner having the same sensitivity as the Claimant, believed to be skiving, in the same way as he treated the Claimant.
The Employment Tribunal failed to construct the correct comparator. EAT substituted its Judgment and set aside the finding of sex discrimination.

Judges:

His Honour Judge McMullen QC

Citations:

[2006] UKEAT 0016 – 06 – 0811, UKEATS/0016/06

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Statutes:

Sex Discrimination Act 1975 1(1)(a) 5(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary HL 27-Feb-2003
The applicant was a chief inspector of police. She had been prevented from carrying out appraisals of other senior staff, and complained of sex discrimination.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. The tribunal had taken a two stage approach. It . .
Cited – MacDonald v Advocate General for Scotland (Scotland); Pearce v Governing Body of Mayfield School HL 19-Jun-2003
Three appeals raised issues about the way in which sex discrimination laws were to be applied for cases involving sexual orientation.
Held: The court should start by asking what gave rise to the act complained of. In this case it was the . .
Cited – Macdonald v Ministry of Defence EAT 19-Sep-2000
EAT Sex Discrimination – Direct . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.248311