Case Summaries Up To February 2007
Select Your Region: Scotland  England and Wales  UK  Northern Ireland  Europe  All
Selected Region: UK
By Daniel Gorry on 01/03/2007 00:00
A policy preventing police officers in a partnership from working together in a supervisor/subordinate role had an adverse impact on women since men outnumbered women by 3 to 1. But the policy was justified by the need to ensure actual and apparent orrectness in working relationships.
By Law Brief Publishing on 01/03/2007 00:00
Burden of Proof: In Kuzle v Roche Products Ltd, the EAT considered the burden of proof as to whether the dismissal was due to protect disclosure in whistleblowing cases. It was held that the correct approach was (1) has the claimant shown a real issue as to whether the reason for the dimissal put forward by the Respondent were not the true reason? (2) If so, has the employer proved his reason for dismissal? (3) If not, has the employer disproved the section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 ...
By Daniel Gorry on 28/02/2007 00:00
The Employment Tribunal failed to consider statutory guidance for the dismissal of a teaching assistant. The case would be remitted for re-hearing on this point to the same Employment Tribunal.
By Daniel Gorry on 23/02/2007 00:00
Tribunal added a party to the proceedings as part of its determination of a preliminary issue, which it proceeded to determine against that party without having heard from that party as such, without notifying him that he might be a party, and in contradiction of the submissions made to it by both the parties before it. This was held procedurally flawed, and the case remitted to a fresh tribunal for re-determination.
By Daniel Gorry on 23/02/2007 00:00
Tribunal failed to make key finding to discrimination case as to whether at the time of the interview the position was still vacant. Tribunal should have assessed damages on the basis of there being a loss of a chance. New hearing ordered due to faults in the fact finding process of the Tribunal in both the Remedies and Merits decision.
By Daniel Gorry on 21/02/2007 00:00
ET said to have no jurisdiction because ET1 issued less than 28 days after a grievance had been submitted. However, S32(6) saved the decision they reached: nothing was obvious from the papers nor drawn to the Tribunal’s attention which meant they could have realised that that was the case. Appeal therefore dismissed.
By Law Brief Publishing on 21/02/2007 00:00
Meaning of Worker: In James v Redcats, the EAT considered the meaning of 'worker' in the context of minimum wage legislation. It was held that if the dominant feature of the contractual relationship was an obligation for personal service, then the contract lies in the employment field.
By Daniel Gorry on 20/02/2007 00:00
Practice and Procedure - Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity
At a CMD and a PHR, a Tribunal Chairman decided that the claims to be heard would be of indirect discrimination on the grounds of race. During the course of evidence the full Tribunal itself indicated that a claim of direct discrimination could be heard. Although the Tribunal was not as a matter of jurisdiction precluded from raising this matter, in the circumstances it was unfair for it to be dealt with immediately given that the Respondent was unrepresented. The Tribunal further erred in faili ...
By Daniel Gorry on 16/02/2007 00:00
Unfair Dismissal - Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason
Lord Chancellor but instead followed no procedure at all, disciplinary or otherwise. The reason was that she had been absent from her post in London for over 9 years, was now living in Wales, and delivered an invitation to return. Extensive grounds of appeal were reduced to two for full hearing: in relation to disclosure, and arguing that the Tribunal was obliged to apply s.98A(2) to hold the dismissal unfair. In particular, it was argued that the effective decision to dismiss was that of a thir ...
By Daniel Gorry on 16/02/2007 00:00
In relation to both mutuality of obligation and control, EAT held that the ET Chairman fell into error. The appeal is allowed. I shall substitute a finding that the Claimant was not an employee of the agency; consequently he is unable to recover the wages which he plainly earned from the Insolvency Fund.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ...
 
This content is made available by CaseCheck Limited under a Creative Commons Licence  |  Terms Of Use