Tag: Employment

London Borough of Enfield v Sivanandan: QBD 5 Apr 2004

Judges:

Jowitt Sir E

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 672 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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
. .

Cited by:

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 EAT 12-Sep-2005
EAT Practice and Procedure – Striking-out/dismissal.
EAT Practice and Procedure – Striking-out/dismissal. . .
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.

Employment

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227080

Sayers v Loganair Ltd: EAT 17 May 2005

EAT Reason for dismissal – Reasonableness of dismissal – The claimant was a pilot whose licence became restricted and he was dismissed. He claimed that he had been unfairly dismissed in respect that his dismissal was due to his having made a protected disclosure. The respondents denied that that was the reason for the dismissal, their case being that the dismissal was due to the restriction that had been imposed on his licence and that it was, in the circumstances, fair. The Employment Tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was the restriction on his licence, not the protected disclosure, but that the dismissal was unfair.

Judges:

The Honourable Lady Smith

Citations:

[2005] UKEAT 0084 – 04 – 1705, EATS/0084/04

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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.

Employment

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227029

Ibrahim v Ethnic Minority Enterprise Centre and others: EAT 18 May 2005

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs – Case management – Claim for disability discrimination and breach of contract. Preliminary hearing at which claimants’ solicitors found liable in expenses and pre hearing review fixed under Rule 7 of Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2001. Claimant appealed against both determinations. Employment Appeal Tribunal held that award of expenses against claimant’s solicitor was incompetent but that the Employment Tribunal had not erred in determining that there should be a pre- hearing review.

Citations:

[2005] UKEAT 0073 – 04 – 1805, EATS/0073/04

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Statutes:

Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227024

Lanarkshire Primary Care NHS Trust v Naicker: EAT 18 May 2005

EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Disability – Reasonable adjustments -The claimant, a health visitor, claimed that she had been subjected to discrimination on account of disability and the Employment Tribunal found that they had failed in their statutory duties in respect that they should have made reasonable adjustments by offering her a post closer to her home, which would have reduced her travelling time to and from work. The Employment Appeal Tribunal found that the Employment Tribunal had failed to address the question of whether or not the claimant was suffering from a relevant disability, had failed to identify when the respondents’ knowledge or deemed knowledge of a relevant disability arose and had, in any event, in purporting to do so, relied on assumptions that they were not entitled to make. Further, with regard to the question of reasonable adjustments, they had failed to take account of relevant evidence. The case was remitted to a freshly constituted tribunal for a rehearing.

Judges:

The Honourable Lady Smith

Citations:

[2005] UKEAT 0003 – 05 – 1805, EATS/0003/05

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227025

Rahmeh and Another v Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and others: EAT 26 May 2005

EAT Time Limits; Practice and Procedure – The Employment Tribunal did not err in law when it decided by agreement that it should hold a preliminary hearing to determine time limits and correctly applied the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Chaudhary v Royal College of Surgeons and Others [2003] ICR 1510.

Citations:

[2005] UKEAT 0625 – 04 – 2605

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227028

Cornwall County Council v Prater: EAT 8 Jun 2005

EAT Contract of Employment – In this case we have held that where a Claimant teacher has accepted a succession of short term special teaching assignments, in circumstances where the Respondent employer was not obliged to offer further assignments and the teacher was not obliged to accept them, she was to be regarded nevertheless as having been continuously employed by the Respondent by virtue of S.212 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. On the particular facts of the case any gaps between the assignments were to be disregarded because the Claimant was only absent on account of a temporary cessation of work. The lack of mutuality of obligation before and after the completion of assignments did not of itself prevent the assignments from constituting contracts of employment.

Judges:

HHJ Serota QC

Citations:

[2005] UKEAT 0055 – 05 – 0806

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Cornwall County Council v Prater CA 24-Feb-2006
The claimant worked for the local authority under a series of contracts. The employer denied that she had been continuously employed and there was no ‘irreducible minimum mutual obligation necessary to create a contract of service’. There were times . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227031

Secretary of State for Education and Skills v Mairs: Admn 25 May 2005

The appellant had been dismissed from the social services department of Haringey Borough Council, and her name placed on a list of persons unsuitable to work with children. She had been criticised in the statutory inquiry into the death of Victoria Climbie. She had led the team of social workers. The Secretary of State appealed her removal from the list by the Care Standards Tribunal.
Held: It was permissible for the tribunal to depart from the decision of a statutory inquiry. That inquiry was not judicial in nature and could not bind a judicial body such as the tribunal. The results of the inquiry were admissible before the tribunal, and the views expressed might be highly persuasive. If the tribunal diverged from the findings of an inquiry it should do so only with care, and should explain its reasons, but in this latter respect it was sufficient to show that it had a justifiable basis for its conclusion. That existed here.

Judges:

leveson J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 996 (Admin), Times 15-Jun-2005

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Protection of Children act 1989 81

Citing:

Appeal from – Mairs v Secretary of State for Education and Skills CST 15-Nov-2004
. .
Cited – National Care Standards Commission, Regina (on the Application Of) v Jones Admn 21-Apr-2004
The Tribunal must ensure that it ‘asks itself the correct questions and then provides intelligible answers to those questions’ . .
Cited – Waddle v Wallsend Shipping Co Ltd 1952
The court considered the relationship between the findings of an inquiry and later judicial proceedings: ‘I think that the competent authorities might consider whether the useful purposes that wreck inquiries serve would not be increased if the . .
Cited – Patras v Commonwealth 1966
(Supreme Court of Victoria) The court distinguished decisions which are judicial from those which are purely administrative: ‘The underlying principle of this form of estoppel is that parties who have had a dispute heard by a competent tribunal . .
Cited – Thrasyvoulou v Secretary of State for the Environment HL 1990
A building owner appealed against enforcement notices which alleged that there had been a material change of use of his buildings in 1982. This notice was issued by a planning authority. As a result of the appeal an inspector determined that the . .
Cited – The European Gateway 1987
The court considered what use should be made by a court of a previous stautory inquiry. After referring to Waddle: ‘It is sufficient if I observe that I do not consider that this dictum (which goes to the admissibility of the report of a wreck . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Employment

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225332

Marks and Spencer Plc v Williams-Ryan: CA 19 Apr 2005

The court accepted a late filing of an employment tribunal claim after the claimant had received poor legal advice.

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 470, [2005] IRLR 562

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 111(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Marks and Spencer Plc v S Williams Ryan EAT 17-Aug-2004
EAT Time Limits – Reasonable practicability . .

Cited by:

Cited – Beasley v National Grid CA 6-Jun-2008
The claimant had presented his unfair dismissal claim 88 seconds late. He appealed against refusal of jurisdiction by the Employent tribunal and the EAT.
Held: Leave was refused. The tribunal had given proper consideration to the question of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.224785

Gill v Manchester Metropolitan University: EAT 22 Feb 2005

Claimant was two days out of time in his Notice of Appeal against the Strike-out of his claim. While not contended to be dishonest, the Claimant was not convincing and, it was found, Claimant did not post it until day 42. The bank holiday could not be blamed. Further, the Notice of Appeal was bound to fail. Aziz v Bethnal Green City Challenge Co Ltd [2000] IRLR 111, CA applied

Judges:

His Honour Judge Mcmullen QC (Sitting Alone)

Citations:

UKEATPA/1307/04/DM, [2005] UKEAT 1307 – 04 – 2202

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.224696

Hoyland v Asda Stores Ltd: EAT 22 Feb 2005

EAT Equal Pay Act – Article 141 – Pro rata reduction of annual bonus for period of absence on ordinary maternity leave neither sex discrimination nor pregnancy-related detriment.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Bean

Citations:

EATS/0058/04, [2005] UKEAT 0058 – 04 – 2202

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.224695

Inland Revenue v Ainsworth and others: CA 22 Apr 2005

The court considered the calculation of hours under the Regulations when the employee was on extended sickness leave of absence.
Held: Once an employee had exhausted their sick pay entitlement, it was not open to them in addition then to claim holiday pay in respect of the period for which he had been absent from work.

Citations:

[2005] ICR 1149, [2005] EWCA Civ 441, Times 16-May-2005

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Working Time Regulations 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Ainsworth, Kilic, Stringer, Thwaites EAT 4-Feb-2004
EAT Working Time Regulations – Holiday pay . .

Cited by:

See Also – Stringer and Others v Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs; Schultz-Hoff v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund ECJ 20-Jan-2009
(Grand Chamber) Several employees claimed that having been absent from work sick, they were entitled to carry forward their unused holiday entitlements, or if a former worker, to pay in lieu under the Working Time directive.
Held: The workers . .
At Court of Appeal – Revenue and Customs v Stringer, Ainsworth and Others HL 10-Jun-2009
In each case, the employee had retired after long term sickness. The Employment tribunal had upheld their ability to claim arrears of sickness pay arising under the 1998 Regulations, as an unlawful deduction from their wages. They now appealed . .
Cited – Russell and Others v Transocean International Resources Ltd and Others SC 7-Dec-2011
russell_transocean
The appellants worked on various shifts for the defendants in off-shore oil-fields. They were given on-shore rest breaks, which the employers said should count toward their holiday entitlements.
Held: The Court dismissed the employees’ appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.224328

D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth: EAT 6 Dec 1994

Judges:

Mummery P J

Citations:

[1994] UKEAT 266 – 92 – 0612

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 1-May-1995
. .
See Also – D’Souza v Lambeth Borough Council EAT 18-Oct-1995
The employment tribunal held that it had not been practicable for the council to reinstate Mr D’Souza. He had succeeded in a claim for unfair dismissal and sought reinstatement, but this had been refused.
Held: An award of damages was made for . .
See Also – D’Souza v Lambeth Borough Council CA 3-Mar-1996
The claimant challenged a decision that the council could properly refuse to re-instate him after a wrongful dismissal. . .
See Also – D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 2-Jul-1997
. .
See Also – D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 9-Oct-1997
. .
See Also – D’Souza v Lambeth Borough Council CA 10-Dec-1997
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.210331

D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth: EAT 14 Jan 1998

A re-instatement award after a finding of racial discrimination is in two stage process. The first part consisting of the order for re-instatement stays the balance of the award provisionally until the order for re-instatement has been complied with or otherwise.

Citations:

Gazette 14-Jan-1998

Statutes:

Race Relations Act 1976

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – D’Souza v Lambeth Borough Council CA 10-Dec-1997
. .
See Also – D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 1-May-1995
. .
See Also – D’Souza v Lambeth Borough Council EAT 18-Oct-1995
The employment tribunal held that it had not been practicable for the council to reinstate Mr D’Souza. He had succeeded in a claim for unfair dismissal and sought reinstatement, but this had been refused.
Held: An award of damages was made for . .
See Also – D’Souza v Lambeth Borough Council CA 3-Mar-1996
The claimant challenged a decision that the council could properly refuse to re-instate him after a wrongful dismissal. . .
See Also – D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 2-Jul-1997
. .
Cited – D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 9-Oct-1997
. .
See Also – D’Souza v Lambeth Borough Council CA 10-Dec-1997
. .

Cited by:

Cited – D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 1-Jul-1998
. .
Cited – D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth and Another EAT 22-Jul-1998
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.80142

Royal Mail Group Plc v Sharma: EAT 22 Feb 2005

EAT Practice and Procedure – Costs

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (President)

Citations:

UKEAT/0839/04, [2005] UKEAT 0839 – 04 – 2202

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Royal Mail Group Plc v A Sharma EAT 29-Sep-2004
EAT Practice and Procedure – New evidence on appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.224064

Midland Packaging Ltd v Clark: EAT 14 Feb 2005

EAT Practice and Procedure – Time for appealing – Finding that Notice of Appeal (containing 21 pages including necessary documents), whose faxing to the EAT had commenced prior to 4.00 pm on the 42nd day but had not been completed (and not printed out at all) until after 4.00 pm (printing commencing at 4.06 pm) was not out of time.

Judges:

Burton P J

Citations:

[2005] UKEAT 1146 – 04 – 1402, UKEATPA/1146/04

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223093

Morgans v Alpha Plus Security Ltd: EAT 17 Jan 2005

The Tribunal had given credit for the full amount of incapacity benefit which the employee had received during the notice period. He appealed on the grounds that it ought not to have done so. There was a conflict of authority on the point in the Tribunal.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Burton

Citations:

[2005] UKEAT 0438 – 04 – 1701, UKEAT/0438/04, [2005] IRLR 234

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Langley and Another v Burso EAT 3-Mar-2006
The claimant had been dismissed shortly after becoming unable to work. She sought payment of her normal salary during the period of notice saying this was established good practice.
Held: ‘We are put in the invidious position of being bound by . .
Cited – Burlo v Langley and Carter CA 21-Dec-2006
The claimant had been employed by the defendants as a nanny. She threatened to leave, but then was injured in a car acident and given a sick note. The employer immediately engaged someone else. She was found to have been unfairly dismissed. The . .
Cited – Knapton and others v ECC Card Clothing Ltd EAT 7-Mar-2006
EAT Unfair Dismissal: Compensation
Reversing the Employment Tribunal, in the assessment of compensation for unfair dismissal under Employment Rights Act 1996 section 123, an employee who took early receipt . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222391

Safeway Stores Plc v Truelove: EAT 1 Nov 2004

EAT Maternity Rights and Paternity Leave
Time of work necessitated by unexpected failure of baby-sitter. It is not necessary for the ‘reason’ in section 57A(2) Employment Rights Act to be articulated with any formality. It was clear to the Respondent that the Claimant’s case fell within section 57A(2) and the Employment Tribunal had construed the section too restrictively. It is a right to be exercised without formality by parents in difficult circumstances. Qua applied.
EAT Maternity Rights and Parental Leave – Detriment.

Judges:

Her Honour Judge McMullen QC

Citations:

[2004] UKEAT 0295 – 04 – 0111, UKEAT/0295/04, 0295/04

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Qua v John Ford Morrison (Solicitors) EAT 14-Jan-2003
The claimant appealed the refusal of her claim for a finding that her dismissal was automatically unfair. She had been employed for less than a year, and had taken several absences to care for her child. She claimed protection saying that her . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.221570

London General Transport Services Ltd v Bell and 48 Others: EAT 13 Dec 2004

EAT The Tribunal did not err in law in rejecting the Appellant’s argument that the Respondents were barred by issue estoppel from pursuing their claims. However the Tribunal did err in law in its construction of the Framework Agreement and the 1994 Operating Agreement as regards pay for public/bank holidays worked.

Judges:

Richardson HHJ

Citations:

[2004] UKEAT 0589 – 04 – 1312

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.220611

Transport and General Workers Union v Manchester Airport Plc: EAT 4 Aug 2004

EAT Redundancy – Collective consultation and information

Judges:

His Honour Judge Pugsley

Citations:

[2004] UKEAT 0198 – 04 – 0408, UKEAT/0198/04

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v British Coal Corporation, Ex Parte Price and Others QBD 28-May-1993
British Coal had the power to close coal mines once the unions had been consulted. The court gave guidance on the extent of consultation necessary.
Held: Fair consultation will involve consultation while consultations are at a formative stage; . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.220425

Ryan v Blackburn With Darwen Borough Council and Another: EAT 30 Sep 2004

EAT Contract of Employment
A local authority which engaged a teacher subject to a condition subsequent of satisfactory police checks was entitled to bring the contract to an end forthwith when the checks were unsatisfactory.

Judges:

McMullen QC HHJ

Citations:

[2004] UKEAT 0928 – 03 – 3009

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.220391

Mcpherson v BNP Paribas (London Branch): SCCO 13 Jun 2004

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 90034 (Costs)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – McPherson v BNP Paribas SA (London Branch) CA 14-May-2004
The claimant withdrew his claim in the Employment Tribunal. By then, his employer had incurred very substantial legal costs. He appealed against the order for costs against him.
Held: The tribunal had wrongly asked whether the withdrawal of . .

Cited by:

Cited – Ramsay and others v Bowercross Construction Ltd and Another EAT 14-Aug-2008
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Costs
Costs – whether a party can recover by way of costs counsel’s fees (yes) and those of a non legally qualified adviser, as defined in s.71 CandLSA 1990 (no). Employment . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Employment

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.220200

Smith, and Moore v Cherry Lewis Ltd (In Receivership): EAT 5 Nov 2004

EAT Failure to consult regarding redundancies. Protective Award and insolvent employer. Nature and purpose of ‘sanction’ of protective award. Effect of guidance of Susie Radin Ltd v GMB and Others [2004] ICR 893 when employer insolvent.
Appeal against Chairman’s decision not to make protective award allowed.

Citations:

[2004] UKEAT 0455 – 04 – 0511, UKEAT/0455/04, UKEAT/0456/04, [2005] IRLR 86

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Sweetin v Coral Racing EAT 20-Dec-2005
EAT Claimant sought compensation for unfair constructive dismissal and failure to consult prior to a TUPE transfer of a bookmaker’s business for which the claimant worked. Her contract of employment described her . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219765

Williams v Home Office: EAT 11 Oct 2004

EAT Race discrimination in respect of payment while off work sick, and upon a phased return to work. It is open to a Tribunal to disbelieve a manager and find the Respondent liable for one act of discrimination and yet find him/ it not responsible for a second alleged act. Employment Tribunal decision upheld.
Directions given for remedy hearing. Settlement/ conciliation encouraged.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Mcmullen QC

Citations:

[2004] UKEAT UKEAT – 0525 – 1110, [2004] UKEAT – 0525 – 1110, UKEAT/0525/04

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219848

J Botham v Ministry of Defence: EAT 1 Nov 2004

EAT Practice and Procedure – Appellate jurisdiction/Reasons/Burns-Barke.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Bean

Citations:

[2004] UKEAT 0503 – 04 – 1211, UKEAT/0503/04

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Botham v Ministry of Defence CA 14-Mar-2005
Leave given for appeal to the House of Lords . .
At EAT – Serco Ltd v Lawson; Botham v Ministry of Defence; Crofts and others v Veta Limited HL 26-Jan-2006
Mr Lawson was employed by Serco as a security supervisor at the British RAF base on Ascension Island, which is a dependency of the British Overseas Territory of St Helena. Mr Botham was employed as a youth worker at various Ministry of Defence . .
See also – Botham v The Ministry of Defence QBD 26-Mar-2010
The claimant had been employed by the MOD. He was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct, and he was then placed on the list of persons unsuitable for work with children. He succeeded at the Tribunal in a claim for unfair and wrongful dismissal. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219843

Regina (National Union of Journalists) v Central Arbitration Committee: Admn 19 Nov 2004

The NUJ appealed refusal of collective negotiating rights with the Daily Mirror, having a majority of the members in the sports division. The paper had previously given exclusive rights to a competing union. At the time of the hearing the competing union had only one member in the division, whereas the NUJ had a majority.
Held: Recognition meant recognition for any purpose. Once a collective agreement was in place, the CAC had no further part to play. The words could not be read to require substantial workeers support for the recognised union.

Judges:

Hodge J

Citations:

Times 25-Nov-2004, [2004] EWHC 2612 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Trades Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 178 Sch1A p35

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Wilson and NUJ, Palmer, Wyeth and RMT, Doolan and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 2-Jul-2002
The appellants were journalists and other workers, and members of trades unions. Their employers had de-recognised the unions, paying sums to buy out those rights. The claimants had not surrendered their rights, and had been paid less because of it. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina (National Union of Journalists) v Central Arbitration Committee and Another CA 21-Jul-2005
The Union complained that the company had rejected its application for bargaining rights. The company replied that an agreement was in place, but the Union said that that agreement was ineffective.
Held: There was nothing to prevent a company . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219862

Wheeler v Sungard Sherwood Systems Group Ltd: EAT 18 Oct 2004

EAT Disability Discrimination – Justification

Judges:

His Honour Judge Ansell

Citations:

UKEAT/0459/04, [2004] UKEAT 0459 – 04 – 1511

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Mid-Staffordshire General Hospitals NHS Trust v Cambridge EAT 4-Mar-2003
EAT The claimant had presented claims of sex and disability discrimination and victimisation. She suffered injury to her throat when builders demolished a wall near her workstation.
Held: The employer’s . .
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.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219846

Culshaw v Eldonian Group Ltd: EAT 30 Sep 2004

EAT Maternity Rights and Parental Leave – Sex discrimination – No error in ET majority (Chairman dissenting) finding that as a matter of fact the treatment of the Applicant was not related to her pregnancy or maternity leave.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Mcmullen QC

Citations:

[2004] UKEAT 0272 – 04 – 3009, UKEAT/0272/04

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219735

Jones v Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council and others: EAT 18 Aug 2004

EAT Practice and Procedure – Costs

Judges:

His Honour Judge Pugsley

Citations:

[2004] UKEAT 0441 – 04 – 1808, UKEAT/0441/04

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Jones v Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council and others EAT 9-Feb-2005
EAT Practice and Procedure – Costs. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219731

McGowan v Scottish Water: EAT 23 Sep 2004

A court or tribunal may properly admit relevant evidence even where it has been gathered in breach of an Article 8 right to ‘privacy’ where to do so is adjudged to be necessary in order to secure a ‘fair’ hearing as required by both the common law and Article 6 of the convention.

Judges:

The Honourable Lord Johnston

Citations:

EATS/0007/04, [2004] UKEAT 0007 – 04 – 2309

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Cited – Amwell View School v Dogherty EAT 15-Sep-2006
amwell_dogherty
The claimant had secretly recorded the disciplinary hearings and also the deliberations of the disciplinary panel after their retirement. The tribunal had at a case management hearing admitted the recordings as evidence, and the defendant appealed, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Human Rights

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219738

Ali v Office of National Statistics: CA 21 Oct 2004

The court set out the proper approach to an application for leave to amend an originating application before the Employment Tribunal.

Judges:

The Honerable Mr Justice Maurice Kay Lord Justice Waller Lord Justice Chadwick

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1363, [2005] IRLR 201

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Office of National Statistics v Ali EAT 18-Feb-2004
EAT Race Discrimination – Indirect. . .
See Also – Ali v Office for National Statistics EAT 21-Oct-2002
. .
Approved – Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore EAT 2-May-1996
The claimant had been summarily dismissed. His application at first made no mention of a complaint that it had related to his trades union activities. He wrote to the secretary seeking amendment of his claim to include a claim that his dismissal was . .

Cited by:

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

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

Employment

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219666

Stevens v Greater London Magistrates Courts Authority: EAT 30 Sep 2004

EAT A tribunal or chairman is required to give reasons, which need not conform to Rule 12, for an interlocutory or interim order. Where the application is likely to be contested, it is good practice to invite the other party’s submissions before making an order. Reasons will be sufficient if they refer to and adopt or reject one or other party’s submission.

Judges:

McMullen QC HHJ

Citations:

[2004] UKEAT 0269 – 04 – 3009

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.218992

Batty v BSB Holdings (Cudworth) Ltd: CA 5 Nov 2001

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1969

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Leonard Batty v BSB Holdings (Cudworth) Ltd CA 24-May-2002
The employee was former managing director employed as consultant on a fixed term contract. After differences with the new management, he was off work with stress. The company sought to suspend him. He claimed that the company had repudiated the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.218498

BLP UK Ltd v Marsh: CA 23 Aug 2002

application for permission to appeal

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1301

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At EAT – BLP UK Ltd v Marsh EAT 12-Jun-2001
. .
CA Appeal – BLP UK Ltd v Marsh CA 16-Jan-2003
. .

Cited by:

Leave – BLP UK Ltd v Marsh CA 16-Jan-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.217518

Langston v Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers: CA 19 Dec 1973

Unless there is an express provision for this an employer must provide work to an employee when there is available work to be done.

Judges:

Lord Denning MR

Citations:

[1973] EWCA Civ 7, [1974] ICR 180, [1974] 1 All ER 980, [1974] 1 WLR 185,

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – SG and R Valuation Service Co v Boudrais and others QBD 12-May-2008
The claimant sought to require the defendants not to work during their notice period to achieve the equivalent of garden leave despite there being no provision for garden leave in the contracts. It was said that the defendants had conspired together . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.262743

Sybron Corporation v Rochem: CA 1983

There was an allegation that the employee had failed to disclose breaches of contract by fellow employees. This had taken place at a time when a decision was being taken as to the payment to be made to him under the terms of a pension scheme. The scheme provided for different payments according to whether or not the member of the scheme was dismissed for fraud or serious misconduct.
Held: An employee has no duty to disclose to his employers his own misconduct but he had been under a duty to disclose a fraudulent misconduct of the subordinate employees with whom he had acted, even though that disclosure would have revealed his own misconduct to his employers. There is no general duty to report a fellow servant’s misconduct or breach of contract but whether there is such a duty depends on the contract or the terms of employment of the particular servant. It is therefore a question of the status of the relevant employee.

Citations:

[1983] 2 All ER 706, [1984] Ch 112

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Horcal Ltd v Gatland CA 1984
The court considered the arguments presented as to the duty of a director of a company to disclose his own breach of fiduciary duty: ‘Counsel . . submitted, as a general proposition, that, putting fraud on one side, there is no general duty on . .
Cited – Tesco Stores Limited v Pook, Pook, Universal Projects (UK) Limited ChD 14-Apr-2003
A trustee in breach of his duty has a duty to disclose that breach. It was alleged that the defendants, including a director of the claimant, had submitted false invoices to the claimants, and purchased property with the resulting profits.
Cited – Fassihim, Liddiardrams, International Ltd, Isograph Ltd v Item Software (UK) Ltd CA 30-Sep-2004
The first defendant (F) had been employed by a company involved in a distribution agreement. He had sought to set up a competing arrangement whilst a director of the claimant, and diverted a contract to his new company.
Held: A company . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Employment

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.194877

Pinnington v Swansea City and County and Another: CA 19 Aug 2004

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1180

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – B Pinnington v The City and County of Swansea, The Governing Body of Ysgol Crug Glas School EAT 10-Mar-2004
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for dismissal . .
See Also – Pinnington v City and County of Swansea and Another CA 3-Feb-2005
The applicant was a school nurse who was suspended after disclosing facts about her employers. She said that the employers were in breach of the Act in failing to re-instate her once the 1998 Act came into force.
Held: The events about which . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – B Pinnington v The City and County of Swansea, The Governing Body of Ysgol Crug Glas School EAT 10-Mar-2004
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for dismissal . .
See Also – Pinnington v City and County of Swansea and Another CA 3-Feb-2005
The applicant was a school nurse who was suspended after disclosing facts about her employers. She said that the employers were in breach of the Act in failing to re-instate her once the 1998 Act came into force.
Held: The events about which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215999

Duthie v Bath and North East Somerset Council: CA 9 Jun 2004

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1194

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – W A Duthie v Bath and North East Somerset Council EAT 29-Apr-2003
The claimant said he had not been given time off from work to attend relevant health and safety training courses. The company responded that the regulations had been repealed, and the tribunal had no jurisdiction.
Held: Jurisdiction was . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – W A Duthie v Bath and North East Somerset Council EAT 29-Apr-2003
The claimant said he had not been given time off from work to attend relevant health and safety training courses. The company responded that the regulations had been repealed, and the tribunal had no jurisdiction.
Held: Jurisdiction was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Health and Safety

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215975

Arie Botzen And Others v Rotterdamsche Droogdok Maatschappij Bv: ECJ 7 Feb 1985

ECJ Article 3(1) covered the rights and obligations of the transferor arising from a contract of employment or an employment relationship existing on the date of the transfer and entered into with employees who, in order to carry out their duties, are assigned to the part of the undertaking or business transferred
Rotterdamsche . . claims that only employees working full-time or substantially full-time in the transferred part of the undertaking are covered by the transfer of employment relationships, to the exclusion of those engaged in partial tasks in various businesses or parts of businesses and those who, although working for several businesses or parts of businesses, form part of the remaining staff.
On the other hand, the Commission considers that the only decisive criterion regarding the transfer of employees’ rights and obligations is whether or not a transfer takes place of the department to which they were assigned and which formed the organisational framework within which their employment relationship took effect.
The Commission’s view must be upheld. An employment relationship is essentially characterised by the link existing between the employee and the part of the undertaking or business to which he is assigned to carry out his duties. In order to decide whether the rights and obligations under an employment relationship are transferred under Directive 77/187 by reason of a transfer within meaning of article 1(1) thereof, it is therefore sufficient to establish to which part of the undertaking or business the employee was assigned.’

Citations:

C-186/83, R-186/83, [1985] EUECJ R-186/83, [1985] ECR 519

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – North Wales Training and Enterprise Council Ltd v Astley and others HL 21-Jun-2006
Civil servants had been transferred to a private company. At first they worked under secondment from the civil service. They asserted that they had protection under TUPE and the Acquired Rights Directive. The respondent said that there had only been . .
Applied – Duncan Webb Offset (Maidstone) Ltd v Cooper and Another EAT 15-Jun-1995
A company owned subsidiary companies in the printing industry at Maidstone, Basildon and St Albans. Three employees worked for the group. The Maidstone business was transferred in a transfer to which the 1981 Regulations applied. The three employees . .
Cited – Kimberley Group Housing Ltd v Hambley and others (UK) Ltd EAT 25-Apr-2008
EAT TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS
The principles and approach which a Tribunal should take where there has been a transfer of one service provider’s activities to two or more transferees, and there is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215288

Hans Moser v Land Baden-Wuerttemberg: ECJ 28 Jun 1984

ECJ Free movement of workers – Concept of worker. 1. As regards the division of jurisdiction between national courts and the court of justice under article 177 of the treaty, it is for the national court, which is alone in having direct knowledge of the facts of the case and of the arguments put forward by the parties and which must assume the responsibility of giving judgment in the case, to assess, with full knowledge of the matter before it, the relevance of the questions of law raised by the dispute before it and the need for a preliminary ruling so as to enable it to give judgment.
2. Article 48 of the eec treaty does not apply to situations which are wholly internal to a member state, such as that of a national of a member state who has never resided or worked in another member state. Such a person may not rely on article 48 to prevent the application to him of legislation of his own country, denying him access to a particular kind of vocational training.

Citations:

R-180/83, [1984] EUECJ R-180/83

Links:

Bailii

European, Employment

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215240

Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale v Barsotti and Others C-84/01: ECJ 4 Mar 2004

ECJ (Social Policy) Social policy – Protection of employees in the event of their employer’s insolvency – Directive 80/987/EEC – Limitation of liability of the guarantee institutions – Ceiling to the liability – Part payments by the employer – Social objective of the directive

Citations:

[2004, ECR I-2005, C-84/01, [2004] EUECJ C-84/01

Links:

Bailii

European, Employment

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213789

Whitehead v The Robertson Partnership: EAT 21 Jun 2004

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Constructive dismissal – Reasonableness of dismissal.
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reasonableness of dismissal

Judges:

His Honour Judge Reid

Citations:

UKEAT/0378/03, [2004] UKEAT 0378 – 03 – 1708, UKEAT/378/03

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Whitehead v Robertson Partnership EAT 23-Jun-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213638