EAT Time Limits
Practice and Procedure – 2002 Act and pre-action requirements
Unfair Dismissal – Constructive dismissal
For the purpose of the extension of the time afforded by reg. 15 of the Employment Act 2002 (Dispute Resolution) Regulations 2004, an employee’s grievance is to be treated as lodged ‘within the normal time limit’ even if it is lodged before the effective date of termination or other date from which time starts to run.
The Honourable Mr Justice Underhill
[2006] UKEAT 0339 – 06 – 1511, UKEAT/0339/06
Employment Act 2002 (Dispute Resolution) Regulations 2004
England and Wales
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.
Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.247850
Practice and Procedure – extending time for presenting a claim
The Employment Tribunal Chairman conducting consideration of a review of her Judgment that the claim was out of time should have given a decision on the Claimant’s case as to whether the change in the Employment Tribunal claim form requirements, set against the advice she was given around the threshold of 1 October 2004, affected the Claimant’s failure to present the claim so that time should be extended.
[2006] UKEAT 0636 – 05 – 2311
England and Wales
Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.247852
[2006] UKEAT 0313 – 06 – 2710
England and Wales
Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.247833
Time Limits – Just and equitable extension
Practice and Procedure – 2002 Act and pre-action requirements
Just and equitable extension – Tribunal Chairman’s reasons concentrated impermissibly on one period of delay and/or failed to evaluate the factors for an against the consideration of the claim out of time.
Reasonable practicality of sending step one letter – Tribunal Chairman’s reasons in one key respect not based on adequate explanation or factual findings.
His Honour Judge Richardson
[2006] UKEAT 0246 – 06 – 1711, UKEAT/0246/06
England and Wales
Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.247838
EAT Time Limits
Practice and Procedure – 2002 Act and pre-action requirements
Unfair Dismissal – Constructive dismissal
For the purpose of the extension of the time afforded by reg. 15 of the Employment Act 2002 (Dispute Resolution) Regulations 2004, an employee’s grievance is to be treated as lodged ‘within the normal time limit’ even if it is lodged before the effective date of termination or other date from which time starts to run.
[2006] UKEAT 0387 – 06 – 1511, [2007] ICR 671, [2007] IRLR 4
Employment Act 2002 (Dispute Resolution) Regulations 2004 15
England and Wales
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 – Foster v Bon Groundwork Ltd EAT 17-Mar-2011
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Striking-out/dismissal
In April 2009, the Claimant, who was then 77 years of age, was employed by the Respondent, when he was laid off without pay. While still being employed by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.247845
Practice and Procedure – Striking-out/dismissal
Should case be struck out on the grounds that it has no reasonable prospect of success? Employment Tribunal held that it should not, because although very weak, it was a case where the evidence should be heard. The EAT held that there was in substance no error of law in that analysis. The issue was complicated because the Claimant and the Tribunal considered the claim to be one of indirect discrimination whereas the EAT held that it was direct. A claim of indirect discrimination could not succeed, but the claim for direct discrimination turned on the evidence.
Elias P
[2006] UKEAT 0457 – 06 – 1411, UKEAT/0457/06
England and Wales
Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.247846
Practice and Procedure – Costs
The Chairman took into account, in deciding to award costs from 21 October, a factor for which there was no evidential basis. Remitted to him to reconsider his decisions on a correct factual basis.
[2006] UKEAT 0299 – 06 – 1311
England and Wales
Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.247841
EAT Practice and Procedure – Striking-Out/dismissal – Chairman wrong to strike out unfair dismissal claim at pre-hearing review in view of issues of fact which he was not in a position to determine.
Underhill J
[2006] UKEAT 0258 – 06 – 0610, UKEAT/0258/06
England and Wales
Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.247821
Sex Discrimination – Jurisdiction
Unfair Dismissal – Exclusions including worker/jurisdiction
Public Interest Disclosure
Employee based in Paris. Whether ERA and SDA jurisdiction excluded. SERCO; SAGGERS (EAT). Challenge to ET findings of fact. No error of law shown. Appeal dismissed.
[2006] UKEAT 0362 – 06 – 2010
England and Wales
Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.247814
EAT Contract of Employment – Wrongful dismissal,br />Unfair Dismissal – Constructive dismissal,br />Disability Discrimination – Reasonable Adjustment
Unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. Claimant aggrieved at Respondents’ failure to dismiss a fellow employee who assaulted him and resigned, claiming unfair constructive dismissal and disability discrimination (for failure to dismiss fellow employee as a reasonable adjustment). Tribunal held that the decision not to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses open to the Respondents and rejected the claim.
On appeal, it was held that the range of reasonable responses test was relevant in the circumstances and tribunal’s decision upheld.
The Honourable Lady Smith
[2007] UKEAT 0099 – 06 – 1201, UKEAT/0099/06
England and Wales
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.247780
[2006] EWHC 3151 (Ch)
England and Wales
Cited – Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd and Another ChD 2-Mar-2007
The claimants had entered into an agreement with the defendant house-builder for the development of a site which the claimants had recently acquired. The structure of the agreement was that the developer would obtain planning permission and, under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.246812
The claimant appealed against rejection of her claim for race discrimination as having been made out of time.
Thorpe, Hooper, Hughes LJJ
[2006] EWCA Civ 1548
England and Wales
Cited – Dr Anya v University of Oxford and Another CA 22-Mar-2001
Discrimination – History of interactions relevant
When a tribunal considered whether the motive for an act was discriminatory, it should look not just at the act, but should make allowance for earlier acts which might throw more light on the act in question. The Tribunal should assess the totality . .
Cited – Owusu v London Fire and Civil Defence Authority EAT 1-Mar-1995
The employee complained of his employer’s repeated failure to regrade him, and alleged discrimination. The employer said his claim was out of time.
Held: Mummery J made the distinction between single acts of discrimination, and continuing . .
Appeal from – Dr Vivienne Jean Lyfar v Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals Trust EAT 31-Jan-2006
EAT Race Discrimination
The Employment Tribunal Chairman divided the 17 allegations of race discrimination formulated by counsel into 4 periods. These periods were derived from that document. The finding . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.246369
Effect of working time directive on holiday pay.
[2006] EWCA Civ 1470
England and Wales
Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.246001
EAT Unfair Dismissal – (no sub-topic) – Tribunal correct in deciding dismissal was not within the range of reasonable responses. Tribunal correct in ordering re-engagement.
His Honour Judge Ansell
[2006] UKEAT 0236 – 0237 – 0910, UKEAT/0237/06, UKEAT/0236/06
England and Wales
Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.245400
EAT Practice and Procedure – Disclosure
Allegations that Claimants had made unwarranted demands in original tribunal proceedings said to be victimisation.
Grievance procedure heard evidence relating to without prejudice discussions to show who was making demands.
Tribunal correct in allowing reference to discussions in grievance report on the basis of waiver or abuse of privileged occasion. They should also have allowed evidence of original discussions.
Ansell J
[2006] UKEAT 0307 – 06 – 1610, UKEAT/0307/06
See Also – G Webster v Brunel University EAT 14-Dec-2004
EAT Race Discrimination
Novel point decided that the Employment Tribunal erred in concluding that, in a case where there was an issue as to whether the act complained of was by the Respondent (i.e. by . .
Appeal from – Brunel University and Another v Webster and Vaseghi CA 22-May-2007
The parties had been involved in long standing disputes about the procedures in the respondents complaints of race discrimination. The claims had been dismissed, but the Vice-Chancellor then wrote publicly of unfounded unwarranted and excessive . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.245397
Race and sexual orientation discrimination claims – whether Dispute Resolution requirements complied with – whether time-barred. Obiter. Whether SGP applies as between Claimant and Respondents other than employer.
Peter Clark HHJ
[2006] UKEAT 0396 – 06 – 1210, [2007] ICR 88
England and Wales
Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.245402
EAT The claimant was dismissed on the basis of a medical report which found that he was unfit to return to work. The tribunal found that the respondents should not have relied on the report as it was prepared on the basis of an erroneous view as to his job content. They concluded that that erroneous view must have come from a communication to its author from the respondents. The EAT held that the decision of the tribunal was perverse; that conclusion was central to their decision but was not open to them. They should, also, have granted the respondents’ application for review.
The Honourable Lady Smith
[2006] UKEAT 0008 – 06 – 0707, [2006] UKEAT 0082 – 05 – 0707
England and Wales
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.244569
EAT Employment Tribunal struck out unfair dismissal claims stating they were bound to fail. The employers had made two applications, one for a deposit to be ordered pursuant to rule 20 of the Employment Tribunal rules, and the second for a strike-out pursuant to rule 18(7)(b) on the grounds that the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success. At the first hearing only the rule 20 application was formally before the Tribunal because no notice had by then been given in relation to the rule 18 matter. In fact the Tribunal concluded that the claim was bound to fail, but fixed a second hearing to consider the question of strike-out and also the means of the claimant. Means had to be considered before any deposit was ordered. At the second hearing an order to strike-out all the claims was granted. The claimant alleged that the Chairman had come to the second hearing have prejudged the issue, given her trenchant comments at the first hearing, and that in any event there were fundamental factual disputes which made the strike-out wholly inappropriate. The EAT upheld the appeal on both grounds.
The Honourable Mr Justice Elias (President)
[2006] UKEAT 0705 – 05 – 2507, UKEAT/0612/05, UKEAT/0705/05, [2007] ICR 1126
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 . .
Appeal from – Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust CA 7-Mar-2007
The employer had applied to strike out their employee’s claim for unfair dismissal, and also sought a deposit from the claimant. The claim had been re-instated by the EAT.
Held: A claim should not be struck out where, as here, there were facts . .
See Also – Ezsias v The Welsh Ministers QBD 23-Nov-2007
The Claimant claimed under Section 7(9) of the 1998 Act for failures to disclose data to him following several requests. He sought (i) a declaration that the National Assembly had failed to comply with their obligations under the 1998 Act, (ii) . .
See Also – Ezsias v Welsh Ministers CA 24-Jun-2008
Renewed application for leave to appeal against orders making a limited declaration that there were certain breaches on the defendant’s part of their obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998 in that they did not disclose all disclosable . .
See Also – Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust EAT 18-Mar-2011
EAT CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Disciplinary and grievance procedure
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason
(1) An employee who has been dismissed because of the . .
Applied – Pillay v Inc Research UK Ltd EAT 9-Sep-2011
EAT (Practice and Procedure : Striking-Out or Dismissal) The Employment Judge ought not to have struck out the Claimant’s claim for unfair dismissal under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Ezsias v . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.244568
EAT Discrimination – burden of proof – whether Bahl v Law Society still good law – significance of first tribunal’s findings on unfair dismissal claim when second tribunal conducted discrimination hearing following remission by EAT.
[2006] UKEAT 0180 – 06 – 2807
England and Wales
See Also – J Fernandez v The Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Health Service Commissioner EAT 20-Jul-2006
EAT Race Discrimination – Direct . .
Cited – Dr Anya v University of Oxford and Another CA 22-Mar-2001
Discrimination – History of interactions relevant
When a tribunal considered whether the motive for an act was discriminatory, it should look not just at the act, but should make allowance for earlier acts which might throw more light on the act in question. The Tribunal should assess the totality . .
Cited – Madarassy v Nomura International Plc CA 26-Jan-2007
The claimant appealed against adverse findings on her claims of sex discrimination. The court considered questions arising from the provisions relating to the transfer of the burden of proof in a discrimination case.
Held: Questions of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.244142
[2006] UKEAT 0121 – 06 – 2807
England and Wales
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.244048
[2002] UKEAT 1331 – 01 – 0708
England and Wales
See Also – Johnson v Queen Elizabeth Hospital NHS Trust EAT 11-Sep-2003
EAT Sex Discrimination – Inferring discrimination. . .
See Also – Johnson v Queen Elizabeth Hospital NHS Trust EAT 10-Apr-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.203046
EAT Calculation of holiday pay in circumstances where the employees were entitled to a fixed and variable bonus. Did the pay vary with the work done? The Employment Tribunal held that it did and that both pursuant to contract and under the Working Time Regulations 1998 the holiday pay should be determined by averaging the pay over the twelve weeks preceding the holiday. EAT agreed. Consideration of the Court of Appeal decision in Evans v The Malley Organisation Ltd (trading as First Business Support) [2003] ICR 432
Elias PJ
[2006] UKEAT 0150 – 06 – 2607
England and Wales
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243445
EAT Compensation for sex discrimination. Tribunal assessed future pension loss using the substantial loss method but without giving any credit in the overall loss assessment for pension benefits likely to be acquired in future employment. In addition there was a challenge to the loss referable to loss of private health insurance. Was the Tribunal entitled to use the method it did, and did it err in failing to give credit to future benefits? The EAT answered both questions in the affirmative.
Elias P J
[2006] UKEAT 0071 – 06 – 2206
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243440
EAT The Appellant left her employment and claimed (a) unfair constructive dismissal and (b) disability discrimination. On a preliminary point the ET held the disability discrimination claim was out of time as time ran from the date the employer made it clear no further adjustment could be made and not from the date of termination of employment. ET further held it would not extend time.
Held: the decision as to the time limit was correct and the ET was entitled not to extend time.
Reid J said: ‘the failure to make adjustments is an omission. The respondents are omitting to do what (on the appellant’s case) they are obliged to do. They are not doing any act, continuing or otherwise.’ and ‘There is no requirement of motive in paragraph 3(3) and (4) as is suggested by the Claimant. Under paragraph 3(3)(c) the question is whether there has been a decision not to do something. If there has been an inconsistent act, then (in absence of evidence to the contrary) the paragraph provides that the decision is to be taken as having been made when the inconsistent act is done. If there is no inconsistent act, then the person is taken (to paraphrase) to have decided upon the omission at the end of a reasonable time. Thus, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, if there is no evidence of a deliberate decision, a deliberate decision is imputed to the person.’
His Honour Judge Reid QC
[2006] UKEAT 0224 – 06 – 2407
Cited – Dr Anya v University of Oxford and Another CA 22-Mar-2001
Discrimination – History of interactions relevant
When a tribunal considered whether the motive for an act was discriminatory, it should look not just at the act, but should make allowance for earlier acts which might throw more light on the act in question. The Tribunal should assess the totality . .
Cited – Matuszowicz v Kingston Upon Hull City Council CA 10-Feb-2009
The appellant was employed as a teacher. He became disabled on losing part of his arm. He had been located at a prison and was unable to manage the heavy doors. He complained that the respondent had not made reasonable adjustments by transferring . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243443
ECJ Appeal against dismissal of claims of race discrimination and victimisation on grounds of apparent bias/judicial misconduct of ET and perversity/error of law. Appeal on both grounds dismissed. No reason why, consistent with Lodwick, such an appeal could not be disposed of by EAT, after operation, where appropriate, of paragraph 11 of EAT Practice Direction without cross-examination or full, or even preliminary, hearing.
[2006] UKEAT 0152 – 06 – 1407
England and Wales
See Also – Ansar v Lloyds TSB Bank Plc and others 0609 – 05 – 1407 EAT 14-Jul-2006
EAT Appeal, on basis that Chairman ought to have recused himself from pre-hearing review of a second action, because of outstanding complaints against him of apparent bias/alleged misconduct in respect of an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243220
EAT Appeal, on basis that Chairman ought to have recused himself from pre-hearing review of a second action, because of outstanding complaints against him of apparent bias/alleged misconduct in respect of an earlier hearing between the same parties in the first action, which was being appealed. Neither the existence nor the nature of those complaints made it necessary or appropriate for the Chairman to recuse himself, and there was no merit in the two other points raised by way of challenge to the Chairman’s decision on the pre-hearing review. Locabail, Lodwick, Amec and Dobbs in the CA, and the robust approach to recusal applications based upon the existence of outstanding complaints, followed: and dicta in Breeze Benton and Deman disapproved. The careful and proper consideration by the EAT of a bias allegation or a recusal application should not necessarily require, particularly if the EAT Rule 11 procedure was operated at the sift stage, cross-examination or a full, or even a preliminary, hearing and might well be capable of being dealt with under Rule 3(7) and (10) of the EAT Rules.
Burton J
[2006] UKEAT 0609 – 05 – 1407
England and Wales
See Also – Ansar v Lloyds TSB Bank Plc and others 0152 – 06 – 1407 EAT 14-Jul-2006
ECJ Appeal against dismissal of claims of race discrimination and victimisation on grounds of apparent bias/judicial misconduct of ET and perversity/error of law. Appeal on both grounds dismissed. No reason why, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243221
EAT Practice and Procedure – Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity
Unfair Dismissal – Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason; Polkey deduction
Appellant was dismissed by Company, in which he was 1/3 shareholder, by the other 2/3 shareholders following a disciplinary hearing which had been pre-determined. Employment Tribunal (ET) held this was a procedural error, that he would have been dismissed anyway, and section 98(A) applied. Respondent had not relied on s.98(A), but on assertion disciplinary procedure was not pre-judged. ET had heard no argument or submissions on s.98(A) or Polkey. Case remitted to new Tribunal.
[2006] UKEAT 0175 – 06 – 0106
England and Wales
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243219
ECJ (Staff Regulations) Officials – Career development report – 2001/2002 appraisal exercise – Appellant’s lack of competence – Manifest error of assessment – Obligation to state reasons
T-165/04, [2006] EUECJ T-165/04
European
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243284
EAT Race Discrimination – Inferring discrimination; Burden of proof
Sex and race discrimination. Was the Tribunal entitled to find that Claimant had established a prima facie case? If so, did it properly analyse the nature of the legal burden on the employer once the onus of proof had shifted? The Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) answered yes to the former and no to the latter. Observations on whether a Tribunal should indicate whether it is making a finding of conscious or unconscious discrimination.
EAT Race Discrimination – Inferring discrimination; Burden of proof
Sex and race discrimination. Was the Tribunal entitled to find that Claimant had established a prima facie case? If so, did it properly analyse the nature of the legal burden on the employer once the onus of proof had shifted? The Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) answered yes to the former and no to the latter. Observations on whether a Tribunal should indicate whether it is making a finding of conscious or unconscious discrimination.
Elias J P
[2006] UKEAT 0642 – 05 – 2305, [2006] IRLR 865, UKEAT/0642/05
Cited – Madarassy v Nomura International Plc CA 26-Jan-2007
The claimant appealed against adverse findings on her claims of sex discrimination. The court considered questions arising from the provisions relating to the transfer of the burden of proof in a discrimination case.
Held: Questions of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.242596
EAT The Claimant was dismissed in December 2004 after defects in his performance had appeared in August 2004. Because of the delay and for other reasons which they set out in detail the Tribunal were not satisfied that the dismissal was truly for misconduct and therefore found that the dismissal was unfair.
Held: The Tribunal’s conclusion was not made in error of law and was open to them on the facts, and the appeal failed.
The Tribunal deducted 10% from compensation because the employee did not pursue an internal appeal. They erroneously held that the transitional provisions in Regulation 18 of the Dispute Regulations did not apply; but the only answer on the facts, had those transitional provisions been applied, would have been that the employers did not contemplate dismissal etc before 1 October 2004. Therefore the Tribunal were right, albeit for the wrong reasons, to make the deduction. The employee’s cross-appeal failed.
Burke QC HHJ
[2006] UKEAT 0570 – 05 – 1003
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.242586
EAT Dismissal for misconduct. Tribunal concluded that whilst there were certain procedural failings, the dismissal was fair. Were they entitled to reach that conclusion or were the failings, considered cumulatively, of such a nature that a reasonable Tribunal ought to have found that the dismissal was unfair? Held that the Employment Tribunal was fully entitled to reach the decision that it did.
[2006] UKEAT 0112 – 06 – 1204, UKEAT/0112/06
England and Wales
Cited – RSPCA v Cruden EAT 1986
The dismissal of an employee of the RSPCA was unfair simply because of a delay with no good reason of some 7 months in initiating proceedings. This was even though the employee had suffered no prejudice as a result of the delay.
If a . .
Cited – A v B EAT 14-Nov-2002
The claimant worked as a residential social worker. Allegations were made against him of inappropriate behaviour with a child. The girl’s allegations varied. A criminal investigation took place but insufficient evidence was found. The investigation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.242240
EAT The Tribunal found that the employers’ dismissal of the employee after his lorry had turned over at a roundabout was unfair because their investigation of the facts had been ‘fundamentally flawed’. Held on appeal that the Tribunal had failed to apply the appropriate tests, in particular the range of reasonable responses test, and had decided on the basis of their own view of what was reasonable on the evidence before them. Held, further, that the Tribunal had made an order for re-instatement without considering contributory fault and erred in law in so doing. Claim remitted for new hearing by different tribunal.
His Honour Judge Burke Qc
[2006] UKEAT 0576 – 05 – 1005, UKEAT/0576/05
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241833
EAT Sex Discrimination
Race Discrimination
Employee brought discrimination claims against employer – TU declined support – TU official gave evidence for respondents – ET rejected subsequent discrimination claims against TU based on refusal of support and the fact of official giving evidence but upheld claims based on providing witness statement to employer’s solicitors – no evidence to show even prima facie that this was discriminatory – TU’s appeal allowed and claims dismissed.
The Honourable Mr Justice Bean
[2006] UKEAT 0134 – 06 – 2903, UKEAT/0134/06
England and Wales
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241629
EAT Unfair Dismissal: Constructive Dismissal
School teacher alleging driven to resign by breakdown of trust and confidence and repudiatory breach by employer.
Employment Tribunal upheld. Ample reasoning for findings: 1) no fundamental breach and 2) teacher resigned to take new job at more pay.
Mr Recorder Luba QC
[2006] UKEAT 0406 – 05 – 1001
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241480
[2006] UKEAT 0586 – 05 – 1204
England and Wales
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241488
EAT Unfair Dismissal: Procedural Fairness/Automatically Unfair Dismissal; Compensation
The reversal of Polkey . . 1987) IRLR 503 effected by Employment Rights Act 1996 s98A(2) applies to dismissals occurring on or after 1 October 2004. It applies to a failure to follow a procedure or policy covering dismissal, whether in writing or existing by custom and practice and whether contractual or non-contractual. It does not apply to failure to follow statutory procedures described in s98A(1) and (3). Nor to failure to follow the guidance in the ACAS code or general non-specific failure to follow standards of good employment practice.
Where s98A(2) does apply, so that it is found on the balance of probability that dismissal would have occurred if the procedural failure had not, the dismissal is fair and no compensation is payable. Where the chance of dismissal is less than 50%, the finding will be unfair dismissal and a reduction of compensation of that percentage is appropriate.
[2006] UKEAT 0433 – 05 – 1204
England and Wales
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241218
[1995] UKEAT 419 – 95 – 1312
England and Wales
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.209570
[1997] UKEAT 522 – 96 – 1701
England and Wales
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.207092
EAT Unfair Dismissal: Procedural Fairness/Automatically Unfair Dismissal
The failure to disclose new witness statements obtained during the adjournment of an internal appeal against dismissal was a breach of the employer’s written procedure, and fell outside the band of reasonable responses. Strouthos v London Underground Ltd [2004] IRLR 636 CA applied. The Employment Tribunal Judgment was set aside and the case remitted to it to decide in the light of this direction, and Employment Rights Act 1996 s98A(2), whether the dismissal was fair or unfair. Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd [1988] ICR 142 and Gover v Propertycare UKEAT/0458/05 upheld [2006] EWCA Civ 286 applied.
HH Judge McMullen QC
[2006] UKEAT 0707 – 05 – 2203, UKEAT/0707/05
Employment Relations Act 1996 98A(2)
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.240257
[2006] UKEAT 0533 – 05 – 0903
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.240250
EAT Practice and Procedure – Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity. This case alleges bias at a PHR conducted by a Chairman in a second claim where allegations of bias are outstanding from his handling of the first claim. Vacated and bolted to a now-sifted FH in the first claim. Breeze Benton, Dobbs v Triodos Bank, Deman v The AUT and Hackney v Sagnia on recusal and bias to be considered. The legal principles for the hearing agreed and guidance given.
His Honour Judge McMullen QC
[2006] UKEAT 0609 – 05 – 0803, UKEAT/0609/05
England and Wales
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.239726
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 Employment Tribunal should approach the question whether a grievance has been made about a relevant complaint.
Elias P said: ‘It seems to me that the objective of the statute can be fairly met if the employers, on a fair reading of the statement and having regard to the particular context in which it is made, can be expected to appreciate that the relevant complaint is being raised.’
The Honourable Mr Justice Elias
UKEAT/0708/05, [2006] UKEAT 0708 – 05 – 0303, UKEAT/708/05, [2006] IRLR 416
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 – 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 – 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 – City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council v Pratt EAT 9-Jan-2007
bradford_prattEAT2007
EAT Practice and Procedure
Statutory dispute resolution procedures introduced by the Employment Act 2002 – modified grievance procedure – whether employee complied with requirement to set out in writing the . .
Cited – City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council v Pratt EAT 4-Oct-2006
EAT Practice and Procedure
Statutory dispute resolution procedures introduced by the Employment Act 2002 – modified grievance procedure – whether employee complied with requirement to set out in writing the . .
Cited – Riley v First Choice Homes Oldham Ltd EAT 30-Apr-2008
riley_firstEAT2008
EAT Statutory Discipline and Grievance Procedures – Whether applicable – Whether infringed – Was the modified or standard grievance procedure applicable? The Employment Tribunal found the former, and held that . .
Cited – Clyde Valley Housing Association Ltd v Macaulay EAT 3-Apr-2008
clyde_macaulayEAT2008
EAT Jurisdictional Points: 2002 Act and pre-action requirements
Statutory grievance procedure. Modified procedure. Whether letter from claimant’s solicitor set out the basis for her grievance. . .
Cited – James v Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd CA 23-Oct-2008
The claimant renewed his application for leave to appeal.
Held: The claimant’s first ground was unarguable. His original application failed to comply with the requirements of the 2002 Act. On the second ground, the tribunal had disagreed with . .
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 . .
Cited – 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. . .
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.
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.239200
EAT Claim for unfair (constructive) dismissal, breach of contract and failure to inform and consult contrary to TUPE Regulations. Prior to instituting the tribunal claim, the claimant’s solicitor had sent a letter to the respondents detailing the ways in which it was alleged that they had breached the claimant’s contract of employment and failed to comply with the relevant TUPE Regulations requirements and what the claimant sought by way of compensation in respect thereof. The letter was marked ‘Without Prejudice’ and finished by intimating that if the respondents did not confirm their acceptance of the claimant’s proposals within fourteen days, they would recommend that he should proceed to make appropriate claims in the Employment Tribunal without further intimation. The Employment Tribunal held that the sending of the letter, though not expressly stated to be a grievance letter, amounted to compliance with the requirements of section 32 of the Employment Act 2002. The Employment Appeal Tribunal agreed. It did not matter that the details of the claimant’s grievance was set out in a letter of claim or that it was marked ‘Without prejudice’.
The Honourable Lady Smith
UKEATS/0052/05, [2005] UKEAT 0052 – 05 – 2012
Cited – Clyde Valley Housing Association Ltd v Macaulay EAT 3-Apr-2008
clyde_macaulayEAT2008
EAT Jurisdictional Points: 2002 Act and pre-action requirements
Statutory grievance procedure. Modified procedure. Whether letter from claimant’s solicitor set out the basis for her grievance. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238811
Auld LJ, Tuckey LJ, Maurice Kay LJ
[2005] EWCA Civ 1648
England and Wales
Cited – Dr Anya v University of Oxford and Another CA 22-Mar-2001
Discrimination – History of interactions relevant
When a tribunal considered whether the motive for an act was discriminatory, it should look not just at the act, but should make allowance for earlier acts which might throw more light on the act in question. The Tribunal should assess the totality . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238602
EAT Practice and Procedure – Preliminary issues – Statutory Grievance Procedure 2004 Regulations. Transitional provisions, Regulation 18. Meaning of ‘action’ in Regulation 2(1).
His Honour Judge Peter Clark
UKEAT/0569/05, [2005] UKEAT 0569 – 05 – 2112
England and Wales
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238274
EAT Practice and Procedure: Bias, Misconduct and Procedural Irregularity
Comments by Employment Tribunal Chairman concerning Vietnamese Claimant’s skin colour. Appearance of bias. Fair hearing. Appeal allowed.
Peter Clark HHJ
[2005] UKEAT 0398 – 05 – 1612
England and Wales
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238269
EAT Practice and Procedure – 2002 Act and pre-action requirements – Statutory disciplinary procedure – internal appeal – reasonable grounds for belief, Regulation 15(2), 2004 Regulations. Solicitor’s letter before action not raising appeal. Immaterial that employer had no appeal procedure.
His Honour Judge Peter Clark
[2005] UKEAT 0638 – 05 – 2112, UKEAT/0638/05
England and Wales
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238277
EAT Practice and Procedure: Contract of Employment and Unfair Dismissal
ET upheld DTI’s refusal to pay balance of claims by employee against insolvent employer for (i) compensatory award for unfair dismissal (ii) protective award under TUPE (iii) balance of protective award under TULRCA, over and above ceiling imposed by DTI of 8 weeks at andpound;270 per week for arrears of pay, within ss 184-6 of ERA.
Held: DTI in compliance with ERA and not liable in respect of (i) and (ii) and had paid all due in respect of (iii), and entitled to rely on ceiling, and no non-compliance with the Directive or uncertainty as to interpretation or construction of the ERA.
Burton J P
[2005] UKEAT 0589 – 05 – 2012
England and Wales
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238267
EAT Practice and Procedure
The Tribunal erred in striking out this Notice of Appearance by taking into account when doing so the failure of the Respondent to serve unilaterally its witness statements in circumstances where the Claimant was declining to exchange statements (the Tribunal having directed exchange). On review the Tribunal did not apply correct principles.
Richardson HHJ
[2005] UKEAT 0471 – 05 – 0911
England and Wales
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238263
EAT Redundancy: Constructive Dismissal and Sex Discrimination: Indirect
The Tribunal did not err in law in finding that the second offer satisfied s.141(1) and was suitable in relation to the claimant and was unreasonably refused.
The Tribunal did not err in law is rejecting the claim of unfair dismissal.
The Tribunal gave no proper reasons for rejecting the claim of indirect sex discrimination
Richardson HHJ
[2005] UKEAT 0498 – 05 – 1711
England and Wales
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238264
EAT Race Discrimination: Out of Time
The Tribunal’s approach to the question whether it was just and equitable to consider the Appellant’s complaint out of time was not contrary to the basis agreed at the prior Case Management Discussion.
The Tribunal’s conclusions, read with the submissions which underlay them, did not err in law and were not mutually inconsistent.
His Honour Judge Richardson
UKEAT/0474/05, [2005] UKEAT 0474 – 05 – 1411
England and Wales
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238259
EAT Race Discrimination and Practice and Procedure
Full hearing. Employment Tribunal failed to deal with one aspect of Claimant’s victimisation claim. Remitted to same Employment Tribunal (Sinclair Roche considered) for determination of specific issue.
Per Clark HHJ
[2005] UKEAT 0409 – 05 – 2411
England and Wales
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238261
EAT Race Discrimination – Jurisdiction
EAT Race Discrimination – Jurisdiction.
His Hon Judge Birtles
EAT/990/02, [2003] EAT 0990 – 02 – 0105, [2003] UKEAT 0990 – 02 – 0105
England and Wales
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.189460
ECJ (Staff Regulations) French Text Fonctionnaires – Remuneration – Allocation pour enfant a charge – Allocation double pour enfant atteint d’un handicap – Article 67, paragraphe 2, du statut – Deduction du montant d’une allocation de meme nature.
T-33/04, [2006] EUECJ T-33/04
European
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.238146
EAT Transfer of Undertakings: Consultation and Other Information; Transfer
Practice and Procedure: Appellate Jurisdiction
Nature of ‘undertaking’ for the purposes of TUPE: could there be a stable economic entity arising out of work done under contract where the contract could be terminated at will or others brought in to do the work in substitution?
Could there be a transfer of labour where equipment was needed to perform the tasks but that equipment was hired by the ‘transferor’?
Were the reasons given adequate in that the Employment Tribunal decided that the undertaking was labour intensive yet that most of the workforce continued to work for the transferor?
The Honourable Mr Justice Langstaff
UKEAT/0218/05, [2005] UKEAT 0218 – 05 – 0211, [2006] IRLR 258
England and Wales
Appeal from – Balfour Beatty Power Networks Ltd and Another v Wilcox and others CA 20-Jul-2006
Rule 30(6) of the 2004 Rules, which requires sufficient reasons, is intended to be a guide and not a straitjacket so that if it can be reasonably spelled out from a determination that what the rule requires has been provided by the Tribunal, then no . .
Cited – Greenwood v NWF Retail Ltd EAT 18-Feb-2011
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke
An Employment Tribunal decision must comply in both form and substance with 30(6) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules . .
Cited – Sivagnansundarum v Whipps Cross University Hospital NHS Trust EAT 28-Jun-2011
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke
Although this was a ‘narrative’ judgment sufficient substance could be extracted from the decision to demonstrate compliance with rule . .
Cited – Joes v The City and County of Swansea EAT 5-May-2011
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Compensation
The decisions to apportion compensation, not to award any future loss after April 2008 and to apply an ‘uplift’ of 25% in respect of breach of statutory procedures were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.237427
Whether the employment tribunal’s decision as to the identity of the employer of each of six test claimants involved a misdirection, was perverse and/or was insufficiently reasoned.
Rimer J
[2005] UKEAT 0373 – 05 – 0912
England and Wales
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.236848
[2004] UKEAT 0161 – 04 – 1708
England and Wales
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.236831
EAT Practice and Procedure: Appellate Jurisdiction
On the Appellant’s presentation of a Notice of Appeal 327 days out of time, albeit a letter from solicitors was faxed two hours out of time while Appellant was in hospital, discretion declined following Woodward v Abbey National [2005] ICR 1750 and Schultz v Esso Petroleum Ltd [1999] IRLR 488 CA.
McMullen QC HHJ
[2005] UKEAT 0283 – 05 – 2809
England and Wales
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.236832
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Polkey deduction.
The ET had found basic failings in the way the employers had sought to change employment contracts. This led to constructive dismissals and a finding of unfair dismissal by the Tribunal. But it was held that even if proper consultation had occurred, the employees would not have accepted the fundamental changes which the employers were seeking to introduce into their contracts, and that all they had lost was the period during which consultation would have occurred, which the Tribunal found to be was 4 months. The Tribunal accordingly limited the compensatory award to that period.
Held: The employment tribunal was justifiably drawing on its own industrial experience not in order to speculate, but rather to provide a ‘framework which is a working hypothesis about what would have occurred had the Respondent behaved differently and fairly’.
His Honour Judge McMullen QC
UKEAT/0458/05, [2005] UKEAT 0458 – 05 – 2211
England and Wales
See Also – Propertycare Ltd v T Gower and others EAT 14-Nov-2003
EAT Contract of Employment – Definition of employee . .
Appeal from – Gover and others v Propertycare Ltd CA 28-Mar-2006
The claimants appealed dismissal of their claims for unfair dismissal, on the basis that they had been substantially dismissed as sales agents after rejecting conditions imposed unilaterally by their employers. Their damages had been limited to the . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.236494
EAT The Applicant commenced two actions which claimed unpaid wages for two different periods of time. The issue was whether issue estoppel applied and there was an argument concerning perversity.
His Honour Judge Pugsley
UKEAT/0359/05, [2005] UKEAT 0359 – 05 – 0112
England and Wales
Cited – Lindsey Beveridge v KLM UK Ltd EAT 16-Feb-2000
EAT The claimant appealed refusal of her claim for unlawful deduction. She had been off sick long term. Her doctor certified her fit to return, and she asked to return, but her employer waited a further six weeks . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.236488
EAT Practice and Procedure: Disclosure, Costs and Disposal of Appeal
Appeal against interlocutory orders by ET Chairman debarring reliance on some disclosed documents and ordering costs against the Appellant: and restoration of earlier adjourned application for Review of the decision by the EAT, when allowing the original appeal, to remit the appeal to the same Tribunal. Appeal allowed in respect of debarring order and costs: order was flawed as being in substitution for an earlier order which should plainly not have been granted and as made without consideration of the correct legal approach to prejudice caused by late disclosure, in terms of effect on a fair trial and prejudice caused by debarring the evidence: costs order made in respect of the hearing could not be justified on grounds of unreasonable conduct by the Appellant, but was due to the need to revoke the earlier inappropriate order.
On the restored application for Review, order reviewed so as to remit the appeal to a freshly-constituted Tribunal, on the grounds that the Sinclair Roche requirements for the exceptional step of remitting to the same Tribunal were not, in the light of subsequent events, now satisfied.
The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (President)
UKEAT/0637/05, [2005] UKEAT 0637 – 05 – 2111
England and Wales
See Also – Sinclair Roche and Temperley and others v Heard and Another EAT 22-Jul-2004
EAT Sex discrimination claim by former partners against the partnership and individual partners: direct discrimination (in both cases) and indirect discrimination (in one) found by ET.
(i) ET must, if . .
See Also – Sinclair Roche and Temperley (A Firm) v Heard, Fellows EAT 12-Apr-2005
EAT Practice and Procedure
Employment Tribunal Chairman, after a Case Management and Directions Hearing to delineate issues and set timetable for May hearing, delayed for three months before delivering . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.236495
Deductions from unpaid commissions are deductions from wages for Act.
Times 12-Nov-1996
England and Wales
Appealed to – Robertson v Blackstone Franks Investment Management Limited CA 7-Apr-1998
A self-employed worker was entitled to claim for commission payments due as wages due to a worker, but the employer was entitled to make allowance for advance payments he had made. . .
Appeal from – Robertson v Blackstone Franks Investment Management Limited CA 7-Apr-1998
A self-employed worker was entitled to claim for commission payments due as wages due to a worker, but the employer was entitled to make allowance for advance payments he had made. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.78439
The chambers appealed a finding of discrimination, saying that a pupil was not a member of the set so as to qualify under the Act.
Held: The barristers set or chambers was a trade organisation, but the position of a pupil barrister was not that of a member of that chambers so as to attract protection within the Act.
EAT Disability Discrimination – Disability.
The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (P)
UKEAT/775/03, Times 14-Apr-2004, [2003] UKEAT 0775 – 03 – 0212
Disability Discrimination Act 1995 13(4)
England and Wales
Cited – General Medical Council v H Cox EAT 22-Mar-2002
Miss Cox claimed that the Council had not made a proper adjustment so as to allow her to work for them despite her disability. The Council asserted as a preliminary point that they were not a trade organisation within the sections, and so were not . .
Cited – Jones v Secretary of State for Social Services; Jones v Hudson HL 1972
Unsatisfactory decisions of the highest court could cause uncertainty because lower courts tend to distinguish them on inadequate grounds.
One possible source of law is ‘informed professional opinion’. The word ‘final’ can denote different . .
Cited – Tower Boot Company Limited v Jones CA 11-Dec-1996
An employer’s liability for racial abuse by its employees is wider than its liability under the rules of vicarious liability. The statute created new obligations. Sex and race discrimination legislation seeks to eradicate the ‘very great evil’ of . .
Cited – Goodwin v Patent Office EAT 3-Feb-1999
Tribunals looking at Disability Discrimination should check the four factors in the Act without losing the overall picture. Assistance was available from the WHO Classification of Diseases. Being able to carry out a task did not mean ability was not . .
Cited – Royal College of Nursing of the United Kingdom v Department of Health and Social Security HL 2-Jan-1981
The court was asked whether nurses could properly involve themselves in a pregnancy termination procedure not known when the Act was passed, and in particular, whether a pregnancy was ‘terminated by a medical practitioner’, when it was carried out . .
Cited – Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd HL 28-Oct-1999
Same Sex Paartner to Inherit as Family Member
The claimant had lived with the original tenant in a stable and long standing homosexual relationship at the deceased’s flat. After the tenant’s death he sought a statutory tenancy as a spouse of the deceased. The Act had been extended to include as . .
Cited – Relaxion Group plc v Rhys-Harper; D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth; Jones v 3M Healthcare Limited and three other actions HL 19-Jun-2003
The court considered whether discriminatory acts after the termination of employment were caught by the respective anti-discrimination Acts. The acts included a failure to give proper references. They pursued claims on the basis of victimisation . .
Cited – Aziz v Trinity Street Taxis Ltd CA 26-Feb-1988
An Asian member of the respondent association of taxi cab operators secretly recorded conversations with other members to gather evidence for a claim under the Act. He was expelled from the association for this conduct. He alleged race . .
Cited – General Medical Council v H Cox EAT 22-Mar-2002
Miss Cox claimed that the Council had not made a proper adjustment so as to allow her to work for them despite her disability. The Council asserted as a preliminary point that they were not a trade organisation within the sections, and so were not . .
Appealed to – Higham of 1 Pump Court Chambers v Horton CA 15-Jul-2004
The claimant said he had suffered disability discrimination at the hands of the defendant, a barristers set. He had been accepted as a pupil, but then applied for a deferral which was refused. It was agreed that the set of chambers was a trade . .
Appeal from – Higham of 1 Pump Court Chambers v Horton CA 15-Jul-2004
The claimant said he had suffered disability discrimination at the hands of the defendant, a barristers set. He had been accepted as a pupil, but then applied for a deferral which was refused. It was agreed that the set of chambers was a trade . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.194198
[2003] EAT 0474 – 02 – 1305, [2003] UKEAT 0474 – 02 – 1305
England and Wales
See Also – Fitzgerald v University of Kent at Canterbury EAT 18-Mar-2003
EAT Time Limits . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.191569
Unfair Dismissal and Race Discrimination
When considering on a claim for unfair dismissal by reason of redundancy, the Tribunal gave no reasons relating to section 98(4) except on the Polkey issue.
The Tribunal did not err in law in rejecting a claim of race discrimination.
Richardson HHJ
[2005] UKEAT 0349 – 05 – 2510
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235053
Contract of Employment
The Tribunal erred in law in holding (without first resolving the issue of fact disputed between Mrs Bunker and Mr Cottingham) that a contract of employment existed between 19 December and 5 January.
The Tribunal erred in law in, or failed to give adequate reasons, for its conclusion that there was an arrangement for the purposes of section 212(3)(c) ERA 1996 between those dates.
Richardson J
[2005] UKEAT 0331 – 05 – 2110
England and Wales
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235056
Practice and Procedure: Amendment
In determining the Applicant’s application to amend his originating application so as to include allegations of post employment victimisation. Is it fatal in such an application that the instances of victimisation (or his knowledge of them) post dates the receipt of the originating application by the Employment Tribunal.
[2005] UKEAT 0172 – 05 – 1108
England and Wales
Cited – Science Warehouse Ltd v Mills EAT 9-Oct-2015
EAT Practice and Procedure : Amendment – Amendment of an ET claim to add a new cause of action – ACAS Early Conciliation (Section 18A Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (as amended))
At a Preliminary Hearing, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235046
An order had been made restraining the defendant trades unions from taking industrial action. The unions said the UK court had no jurisdiction.
Held: ‘It is at first sight surprising that the English Commercial Court should be the forum in which a dispute between a Finnish company and a Finnish Trade Union and an international Trade Union concerned with a ferry running between Finland and Estonia should be litigated.’ The questions of European Law would require clarification by the European Court, and a referral was made. The claimant feared delay at the European and pressed for interim relief. The court said that where as here damages ‘are not likely to be an adequate remedy for either party, and where the nature of the case is as I have described, it seems to me that in assessing the balance of convenience and the holding of the ring the merits and strengths of Viking’s case has considerable relevance.’ To continue the injunction however would be to give the claimants the only remedy they needed, and to anticipate the finding of the European Court. The injunction was discharged.
Waller, Mummery, Tuckey LJJ
[2005] EWCA Civ 1299
England and Wales
Appeal from – Viking Line Abp v International Transport Workers’ Federation and Another ComC 16-Jun-2005
The claimant sought an injunction against the respondent international union of trades unions to restrain industrial action intended to prevent its transfer of registration of a ferry plying between Finland and Estonia to Estonia. It sought also a . .
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 – Regina v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame (No 2) HL 11-Oct-1990
The validity of certain United Kingdom legislation was challenged on the basis that it contravened provisions of the EEC Treaty by depriving the applicants of their Community rights to fish in European waters, and an interlocutory injunction was . .
Cited – Garden Cottage Foods Ltd v Milk Marketing Board HL 1984
In English law a breach of statutory duty, is actionable as such by a private individual to whom loss or damage is caused by a breach of that duty. Lord Diplock said that it was quite unarguable: ‘that if such a contravention of Article 86 gives . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Ex Parte Trades Union Congress CA 17-Oct-2000
Where a court referred an issue to the European Court, it was for that court in its discretion to decide whether interim relief might be granted, and an appellate court should not normally interfere in that exercise. The considerations for such a . .
Cited – Albany International BV v Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds Textielindustrie ECJ 21-Sep-1999
ECJ Compulsory affiliation to a sectoral pension scheme – Compatibility with competition rules – Classification of a sectoral pension fund as an undertaking. . .
Cited – Pavel Pavlov and Others v Stichting Pensioenfonds Medische Specialisten ECJ 12-Sep-2000
Europa Compulsory membership of an occupational pension scheme – Compatibility with competition rules – Classification of an occupational pension fund as an undertaking. . .
Cited – Commission v France (Judgment) ECJ 4-Apr-1974
Europa The commission, in the exercise of the powers which it has under articles 155 and 169 of the treaty, does not have to show the existence of a legal interest, since, in the general interest of the . .
Cited – Eugen Schmidberger, Internationale Transporte und Planzuge v Republic of Austria ECJ 12-Jun-2003
An environmental group organised a demonstration which blocked a motorway affecting the free movement of goods. The claimant haulage company complained that the respondent government had failed to prevent the blockage for many hours causing it . .
Cited – Hendrik van der Woude v Stichting Beatrixoord ECJ 21-Sep-2000
Competition – Community rules – Matters covered – Collective agreements in pursuit of social policy objectives – Collective agreement concerning sickness insurance and requiring an employer to pay employer contributions only to the insurers selected . .
Cited – B N O Walrave And L J N Koch v Association Union Cycliste Internationale, Koninklijke Nederlandsche Wielren Unie Et Federacion Espanola Ciclismo ECJ 12-Dec-1974
ECJ The practice of sport is subject to community law only in so far as it constitutes an economic activity within the meaning of article 2 of the Treaty. The prohibition of discrimination based on nationality in . .
Cited – J C J Wouters, J W Savelbergh and Price Waterhouse Belastingadviseurs BV v Algemene Raad van de Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten, intervener: Raad van de Balies van de Europese Gemeenschap ECJ 19-Feb-2002
ECJ Professional body – National Bar – Regulation by the Bar of the exercise of the profession – Prohibition of multi-disciplinary partnerships between members of the Bar and accountants – Article 85 of the EC . .
Cited – Union Royale Belge des societes de Football Association and others v Bosman and others ECJ 15-Dec-1995
bosmanECJ1995
A request for the Court to order a measure of inquiry under Article 60 of the Rules of Procedure, made by a party after the close of the oral procedure, can be admitted only if it relates to facts which may have a decisive influence and which the . .
Cited – Roman Angonese v Cassa di Risparmio di Bolzano SpA ECJ 6-Jun-2000
Europa Under the preliminary ruling procedure provided for by Article 177 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 234 EC), it is for the national courts alone, which are seised of a case and which must . .
Cited – Societe Anonyme De Droit Francais Seco Et Societe Anonyme De Droit Francais Desquenne and Giral v Etablissement D’Assurance Contre La Vieillesse Et L’Invalidite. ECJ 3-Feb-1982
Europa Article 59 and the third paragraph of article 60 of the eec treaty entail the abolition of all discrimination against a person providing a service on the grounds of his nationality or the fact that he is . .
Cited – Rush Portuguesa Ld v Office National d’immigration ECJ 27-Mar-1990
ECJ Articles 59 and 60 of the EEC Treaty and Articles 215 and 216 of the Act of Accession of Portugal must be interpreted as meaning that an undertaking established in Portugal providing services in the . .
Cited – Jean-Claude Arblade, Arblade and Fils SARL v Bernard Leloup, Serge Leloup, Sofrage SARL ECJ 23-Nov-1999
ECJ Freedom to provide services – Temporary deployment of workers for the purposes of performing a contract – Restrictions. . .
Cited – Unison v United Kingdom ECHR 2002
(Third Chamber) The freedom of association under Article 11 of the ECHR did not include a right for a union to require ‘that an employer enter into or remain in any collective bargaining arrangement’.
‘The Court recalls that, while Article 11 . .
Cited – Andre Mazzoleni v Inter Surveillance Assistance SARL, as the party civilly liable; third parties: Eric Guillaume and Others ECJ 15-Mar-2001
Europa Freedom to provide services – Temporary deployment of workers for performance of a contract – Directive 96/71/EC – Guaranteed minimum.
A French company, ISA provided security services in France and . .
Cited – Finalarte Sociedade de Construcao Civil Ld, Portugaia Construcoes and Engil Sociedade de Construcao Civil SA v Urlaubs-und Lohnausgleichskasse der Bauwirtschaft etc ECJ 25-Oct-2001
ECJ Article 59 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) and Article 60 of the Treaty (now Article 50 EC) do not preclude a Member State from imposing national rules guaranteeing entitlement to paid . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231672
EAT Practice and Procedure – Amendment – Permission to amend claim form to add new claim. Whether permission may be given notwithstanding that new claim is out of time when application is made, or whether the balance of hardship/prejudice test is to be applied.
His Honour Judge Peter Clark
UKEAT/0486/05, [2005] UKEAT 0486 – 05 – 1310
England and Wales
Cited – Transport and General Workers Union v Safeway Stores Ltd EAT 23-Mar-2007
EAT Practice and Procedure – Amendment
Safeway closed a depot, leading to a large number of redundancies. The Union alleged that consultation was inadequate. Proceedings were initially commenced claiming only . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231528
EAT Where employees are dismissed for refusal to sign a new contract containing proposed covenants in restraint of trade, the test is no different from that in respect of dismissal for refusing to sign a fresh contract in any other case, namely that, in respect of the proposed terms said to be unreasonable, it is not that the defence of some other substantial reason is not available, but that the reasonableness of the terms falls to be considered under s98(4), in accordance with the line of authorities recently summarised in Scott v Richardson EATS/0074/04: Forshaw v Archcraft Ltd [2005] IRLR 600 not followed. However, the Tribunal’s alternative decision that there was an unfair procedure and that Polkey did not apply meant that the finding of unfair dismissal stood and/or that there was no ground for remission.
The Honourable Mr Justice Burton
UKEAT/0339/05, [2005] UKEAT 0339 – 05 – 2010
Employment Rights Act 1996 89(1)(b)
England and Wales
Cited – St John of God (Care Services) Ltd v Brooks and others EAT 8-Apr-1992
The appellant had suffered a reduction in its income. It made an offer to staff, on the point of dismissing for refusal to sign, of less favourable terms, including reduced pay and holiday entitlement and the abolition of overtime rates for weekend . .
Appeal from – Willow Oak Developments Ltd. (T/A Windsor Recruitment) v Silverwood and others CA 25-May-2006
The employer appealed a finding that he had been unreasonable in seeking to vary the employment contracts of his staff by adding post employment restrictive covenants, and that the consequent dismissals were unfair. Copies of the new contracts had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231529
The tribunal had served a pre-hearing notice on employment dispute consultants who had acted for the claimant, but who had reserved their position in correspondence with the employers, and had asked that any documents be served on the claimant direct. The claimant did not attend, and her claim was struck out.
Held: The letter had been put before the tribunal, but the firm had in other respects held themselves out as acting for her, and the service was good.
His Honour Judge Ansell
[2005] UKEAT 0400 – 05 – 2809, UKEAT/0400/05, Times 02-Nov-2005
England and Wales
Cited – Kyamanywa v London Borough of Hackney CA 5-Jun-2003
An issue was whether a notice had been sent to solicitors as the authorised representative of the Appellant. The Appellant had occasionally used one firm of solicitors but at other times she had acted in person at the hearing and also when . .
Cited – Weir Valves and Controls (UK) Ltd v Armitage EAT 15-Oct-2003
EAT Practice and Procedure – Case Management
In considering whether or not to strike out or impose some lesser remedy the guiding consideration was the overriding objective which required justice to be done . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231372
EAT Practice and Procedure – Striking-out/dismissal.
EAT Practice and Procedure – Striking-out/dismissal.
His Honour Judge Peter Clark
[2005] UKEAT 0348 – 05 – 1209, UKEAT/0348/05
England and Wales
See Also – Sivanandan v London Borough of Enfield EAT 1-May-1998
. .
See Also – Sivanandan v London Borough of Enfield and others EAT 1-Oct-1998
. .
See Also – Sivanandan v London Borough of Enfield and others EAT 1-Feb-1999
. .
See Also – Sivanandan v Enfield and others EAT 25-Apr-2001
. .
See Also – Sivanandan v Enfield and Another EAT 11-Jul-2001
. .
See Also – Sivanandan v Enfield and others EAT 26-Jul-2001
. .
See Also – Sivanandan v London Borough of Enfield and Another EAT 26-Jul-2001
. .
See Also – Sivanandan v London Borough of Enfield and others EAT 23-Jul-2002
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal . .
See Also – Sivanandan v London Borough of Enfield and others CA 7-Oct-2002
. .
See Also – London Borough of Enfield v Sivanandan QBD 5-Apr-2004
. .
See Also – London Borough of Enfield v Sivanandan CA 20-Jan-2005
The employee first issued a claim in the employment tribunal, and then in the High Court. The defendant company argued that the tribunal proceedings were not concluded before the High Court proceedings were issued, but only later when they were . .
See Also – London Borough of Enfield v Sivanandan CA 29-Jun-2006
Application for civil restraint order. . .
See Also – Sivanandan v London Borough of Enfield EAT 19-Oct-2006
EAT Practice and Procedure – Estoppel or Abuse of Process. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231375
EAT Practice and Procedure
On non-appearance by Applicant (as it turned out, due to negligence by his solicitor), the tribunal proceeded, and dismissed his claim: it then refused to hear a Review because of the wasted hearing and of the existence of a remedy against the solicitor. Bartholomew reconsidered (ET does not need to telephone a party on non-attendance but should certainly consider doing so (and should have done so in this case, where solicitors on the record)). Review should have been granted. Remedy against solicitors not material – and costs (upon undertaking by the solicitors to meet any order) sufficient to resolve prejudice.
Burton J P
UKEAT/0064/04, [2004] UKEAT 0064 – 04 – 2104, [2004] IRLR 86, [2004] ICR 1188
England and Wales
Cited – Euro Hotels (Thornton Heath) Ltd v Alam EAT 20-Apr-2009
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Postponement or stay
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Review
Employment Tribunal gave Judgment at a hearing in the absence of the Respondent. It held a review and refused to vary the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231309
EAT The Employment Tribunal was wrong to find that the Respondent had discriminated against the Claimant under Section 6(1) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 because it omitted to find what arrangements made by or on behalf of the Respondent, or which physical feature of the Respondent’s premises, placed the Claimant at a substantial disadvantage.
The Employment Tribunal found that reasonable adjustments could have been made although there was no evidence to support the finding and the finding was contrary to the medical evidence.
His Honour Judge D Serota QC
UKEAT/0712/04, [2005] UKEAT 0712 – 04 – 0908, UKEAT/0144/05
Disability Discrimination Act 1995 6(1)
Cited – London Borough of Camden v Price-Job EAT 18-Dec-2007
EAT Disability discrimination – Reasonable adjustments/Justification
1. The employers appealed against two findings by the Tribunal that they had failed to make reasonable adjustments for her disability and . .
Cited – Dundee City Council v Malcolm EAT 25-Jul-2008
EAT SEX DISCRIMINATION: Vicarious liability
Sexual harassment claim by an employee of an education authority. Circumstances in which tribunal had misdirected itself as to its own prior judgment and erred in . .
Cited – Stafford and Rural Homes Ltd and Another v Hughes EAT 9-Mar-2009
EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION: Reasonable adjustments
Effect of Malcolm: on the facts of the case the decision in Malcolm did not make any difference to the conclusion. There is no requirement in law to set . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231131
EAT Maternity Rights and Parental Leave – Unfair dismissal.
The Honourable Mr Justice Burton
[2005] UKEAT 0759 – 04 – 2102, UKEAT/0759/04
England and Wales
Cited – Dr Anya v University of Oxford and Another CA 22-Mar-2001
Discrimination – History of interactions relevant
When a tribunal considered whether the motive for an act was discriminatory, it should look not just at the act, but should make allowance for earlier acts which might throw more light on the act in question. The Tribunal should assess the totality . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.229902
EAT Practice and Procedure – Compromise. Employment Tribunal not wrong to dismiss application on basis of settlement which did not comply with terms of RRA s.72(4A) and SDA and 77(4A)
His Honour Judge J R Reid QC
[2005] UKEAT 0875 – 03 – 1506, UKEAT/0875/03
Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.229790
The administrators had adopted the contracts of certain employees, who now claimed that the protective awards should have priority to the expenses of the administration.
Held: The payments did fall within paragraph 99(5) and do not have super-priority.
Responsibility for protective awards on insolvency.
Lord Justice Clarke Lord Justice Jacob Lord Justice Neuberger
[2005] EWCA Civ 1072, Times 26-Sep-2005, [2006] 2 BCLC 160
Insolvency Act 1986 Sch B1, Trade Union Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 189
England and Wales
Cited – In Re Hartlebury Printers Ltd 1992
Insolvency, at least per se, does not amount to a special circumstance exempting an employer from consulting employees on redundancy. Morritt J noted the distinction in the Directive between contemplated and projected redundancies and section 99 to . .
Appeal from – Krasner (Administrator of Globe Worsted Company Ltd and Huddersfield Fine Worsteds Ltd.) v Mcmath (Representing All Employees of the Companies) ChD 27-Jul-2005
. .
Cited – Powdrill and Another v Watson and Another HL 23-Mar-1995
A receiver of a companies assets, who employed former staff of the company, beyond an initial period of 14 days, becomes personally responsible for their employment contracts, and consequently becomes liable for making redundancy payments. The 1870 . .
Cited – Delaney v Staples HL 15-Apr-1992
The claimant had been dismissed but had been given no payment in lieu of notice. She claimed to the Industrial Tribunal that this was an unlawful deduction from her wages and that therefore the Industrial Tribunal had jurisdiction.
Held: The . .
Cited – McCartney and Unite The Union and Another v Nortel Networks UK Ltd (In Administration) ChD 22-Apr-2010
The administrators gave employees of the company notice of termination of their employment. Then administrators refused consent under para 43(6) to actions against the company in the Northern Ireland Industrial Tribunal for protective awards, unfair . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.229333
EAT Unlawful Deduction from wages and Working Time Regulations – Interesting point on C/M alone jurisdiction to consider WTR points on ‘Wages Act’ claim. See Ainsworth (CA). Jurisdiction of Employment Appeal Tribunal Judge alone to consider substantive WTR argument.
His Honour Judge Peter Clark
[2005] UKEAT 0888 – 04 – 2405, UKEAT/0888/04
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.229243
EAT Appellant was disciplined by her Union and debarred from any union office for 5 years. The Union subsequently determined that persons subject to penalties including debarring from office should not be entitled to attend the National Delegate Conference as members of the public. This was a decision made to preserve order following disturbances the previous year. Appellant complained to the Certification Officer under Section 108A TULR(C)A 1992. He upheld her complaint. On appeal: held that the Union’s decision was not a disciplinary penalty imposed on Ms Gallagher and her complaint should have been dismissed.
His Honour Judge J R Reid QC
UKEAT/0280/05, [2005] UKEAT 0280 – 05 – 2807
England and Wales
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.229160
The Law Society had intervened in the claimant’s employer’s solicitors practice. The claimant appealed refusal of an award of a redundancy payment.
Held: The intervention did not necessarily bring to an end the employer’s business, and therefore there was no necessary redundancy situation implied only because of the intervention. The contracts of employment were not frustrated by a temporary interruption in the supply of services by the employer.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers MR, Waller LJ, Mummery LJ
[2005] EWCA Civ 957, Times 16-Aug-2005
England and Wales
Appeal from – Rose v Dodd EAT 30-Nov-2004
. .
Cited – Brace v Calder 1895
The dissolution of the employing partnership brings a contract of employment to an end.
Rigby LJ said: ‘a contract to serve four employers cannot, without express language, be construed as being a contract to serve two of them . . the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.229028
The claimant said that his employer had failed to respect his right to express his beliefs by obliging him, though a Christian, to work on Sundays.
Held: The appeal failed. ‘The Commission’s position on Article 9, as I understand it, is that, so far as working hours are concerned, an employer is entitled to keep the workplace secular. In such cases an employee is not in general entitled to complain that there has been a material interference with his Article 9 rights.’ A reasonable employer, acting fairly was entitled to change his work practices.
Mummery, Rix, Neuberger LJJ
[2005] EWCA Civ 932, Times 25-Aug-2005, [2005] 1CR 1789, [2005] IRLR 811
European Convention on Human Rights 9
England and Wales
Cited – Abernethy v Mott Hay and Anderson CA 1974
Lord Cairns said: ‘A reason for the dismissal of an employee is a set of facts known to the employer, or it may be of beliefs held by him, which cause him to dismiss the employee. If at the time of his dismissal the employer gives a reason for it, . .
Cited – Kokkinakis v Greece ECHR 25-May-1993
The defendant was convicted for proselytism contrary to Greek law. He claimed a breach of Article 9.
Held: To say that Jehovah’s Witness were proselytising criminally was excessive. Punishment for proselytising was unlawful in the . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Education and Employment and others ex parte Williamson and others HL 24-Feb-2005
The appellants were teachers in Christian schools who said that the blanket ban on corporal punishment interfered with their religious freedom. They saw moderate physical discipline as an essential part of educating children in a Christian manner. . .
Cited – Bell v The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police CA 19-Jul-2005
The claimant had sued over the way he was treated by the respondent in a fraud investigation. The court had dismissed his claims for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment. A prosecution had been commenced but dropped. The judge had held the arrest . .
Cited – Stedman v United Kingdom ECHR 9-Apr-1997
(Commission) The applicant alleged that her dismissal for refusal to work on Sundays constituted a violation of her freedom to manifest her religion in worship, practice and observance, contrary to Article 9.
Held: The Commission first had to . .
Cited – Ahmad v United Kingdom ECHR 1981
(Commision) The applicant was a devout Muslim. His religious duty was to offer prayers on Fridays and to attend a mosque if possible. He was employed as a full time primary school teacher. He complained that he was forced to resign because he was . .
Cited – Konttinen v Finland ECHR 3-Dec-1996
(Commission) The applicant was a civil servant and a Seventh-day Adventist. He was dismissed for his refusal to continue working after sunset on Fridays. His contract required him to work on Friday evenings after sunset.
Held: The claim was . .
Cited – Ahmad v Inner London Education Authority EAT 1976
The appellant was a moslem junior school teacher. The Authority appealed an acceptance of his claim for unfair dismissal, having left his employment because he was not given time off to attend the mosque on Fridays. The Tribunal considered whether, . .
Cited – Ahmad v Inner London Education Authority CA 1977
The appellant said that his human rights were infringed when, as a moslem, he was refsued time off from his work as a primary school teacher to attend prayers at the mosque on Fridays. He had subsequentlly been re-instated part-time, but complained . .
Cited – SB, Regina (on the Application of) v Denbigh High School CA 2-Mar-2005
The applicant, a Muslim girl sought to be allowed to wear the gilbab to school. The school policy which had been approved by Muslim clerics prohibited this, saying the shalwar kameeze and headscarf were sufficient. The school said she was making a . .
Cited – Kalac v Turkey ECHR 1-Jul-1997
In exercising his freedom to manifest his beliefs an individual ‘may need to take his specific situation into account.’ ‘The Commission recalls that the expression ‘in accordance with the law’, within the meaning of Article 9(2), requires first that . .
Cited – X v Y (Employment: Sex Offender) CA 28-May-2004
The claimant had been dismissed after it was discovered he had been cautioned for a public homosexual act. He appealed dismissal of his claim saying that the standard of fairness applied was inappropriate with regard to the Human Rights Act, and . .
Cited – Smith and Grady v The United Kingdom ECHR 27-Sep-1999
The United Kingdom’s ban on homosexuals within the armed forces was a breach of the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life. Applicants had also been denied an effective remedy under the Convention. The investigations into . .
Appeal from – Copsey v WWB Devon Clays Ltd EAT 26-Nov-2003
EAT Disability Discrimination – Disability . .
Cited – Begum (otherwise SB), Regina (on the Application of) v Denbigh High School HL 22-Mar-2006
The student, a Muslim wished to wear a full Islamic dress, the jilbab, but this was not consistent with the school’s uniform policy. She complained that this interfered with her right to express her religion.
Held: The school’s appeal . .
Cited – McFarlane v Relate Avon Ltd CA 29-Apr-2010
The employee renewed his application for leave to appeal against refusal of his discrimination claim on the grounds of religious belief. He worked as a relationship sex therapist, and had signed up to the employer’s equal opportunities policy, but . .
Cited – Johns and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Derby City Council and Another Admn 28-Feb-2011
The claimants had acted as foster carers for several years, but challenged a potential decision to discontinue that when, as committed Christians, they refused to sign to agree to treat without differentiation any child brought to them who might be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228994
(Staff Regulations)
T-459/04, [2005] EUECJ T-459/04
European
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228838
EAT Practice and Procedure
An Employment Tribunal Chairman had no power on remission by the EAT of one point of an appeal to make a Decision different from that made by the first Chairman and not appealed.
McMullen QC HHJ
[2004] UKEAT 0775 – 04 – 0912
England and Wales
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228693
EAT Redundancy – Protective award – adequacy of reasons (BARKE) – maximum protective award for redundancies where 20 – 99 employees involved – TULRCA s189(4) – vires of s.1 1925/99.
His Honour Judge Peter Clark
UKEAT/0131/05/MAA, [2005] UKEAT 0131 – 05 – 2505, UKEAT/0132
Cited – Susie Radin Ltd v GMB and others CA 20-Feb-2004
The company made redundancies but failed to carry out any effective or honest consultation. The tribunal awarded the maximum 90 days protective order. The company appealed saying that it had given the employees greater notice than was strictly due. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228619
Race Discrimination claim in respect of employment wholly outside the UK.
[2005] UKEAT 0008 – 05 – 1603
England and Wales
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228631