﻿<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:trackback="http://madskills.com/public/xml/rss/module/trackback/">
  <channel>
    <title>Agricultural &amp; Rural Law</title>
    <description>Agricultural &amp; Rural Law Cases</description>
    <link>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/BlogId/699/Default.aspx</link>
    <language>en-GB</language>
    <webMaster>registration@casecheck.co.uk</webMaster>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 02:04:41 GMT</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 02:04:41 GMT</lastBuildDate>
    <docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss</docs>
    <generator>Blog RSS Generator Version 0.0.0.0</generator>
    <item>
      <title>UKEATPA/1189/10  Miss O Baiyelo v London Borough of Southwark &amp; Others </title>
      <description>&lt;p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class="MsoNormal"&gt;&lt;font size="3" face="Times New Roman"&gt;Reasonableness of dismissal:  &lt;/font&gt;&lt;span style="mso-ansi-language: EN" lang="EN"&gt;&lt;font size="3"&gt;&lt;font face="Times New Roman"&gt;The claimant, an employee of the Council, was dismissed following the discovery that she had presented herself as homeless and made an application for the 'right-to-buy' a property, despite already owning a property which she had not disclosed on the application form. The Tribunal held that the respondent had conducted a reasonable investigation into the matters, that there was a genuine belief that the claimant had not disclosed material which she ought to have disclosed and that she was guilty of gross misconduct.  It did so after a reasonable investigation and dismissal was in the band of reasonable responses. On review, the Tribunal would not vary its decision in the light of new evidence brought by the claimant since the evidence could have been adduced during the course of the hearing. &lt;o:p&gt;&lt;/o:p&gt;&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class="MsoNormal"&gt;&lt;span style="mso-ansi-language: EN" lang="EN"&gt;&lt;o:p&gt;&lt;font size="3" face="Times New Roman"&gt; &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/o:p&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class="MsoNormal"&gt;&lt;span style="mso-ansi-language: EN" lang="EN"&gt;&lt;font size="3"&gt;&lt;font face="Times New Roman"&gt;The EAT upheld the ET judgment, saying that the ET was entitled to form a view about the new evidence and there was ample other material upon which the Tribunal had already based its decision with no necessity for the new evidence. Two other submissions from the claimant, namely bias by a Tribunal member and an application to adduce new evidence before the EAT, were rejected.&lt;o:p&gt;&lt;/o:p&gt;&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class="MsoNormal"&gt;&lt;o:p&gt;&lt;font size="3" face="Times New Roman"&gt; &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/o:p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
      <link>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/17358/Default.aspx</link>
      <comments>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/17358/Default.aspx#Comments</comments>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&amp;EntryID=17358</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Jul 2011 11:44:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
      <trackback:ping>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/DesktopModules/BlogPlus/Trackback.aspx?id=17358</trackback:ping>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>UKEAT/0334/10 Newcastle City Council v Mrs K Spires </title>
      <description>&lt;p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class="MsoNormal"&gt;&lt;font size="3"&gt;&lt;font face="Times New Roman"&gt;Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments:  &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/font&gt;&lt;span style="mso-ansi-language: EN" lang="EN"&gt;&lt;font size="3"&gt;&lt;font face="Times New Roman"&gt;The claimant went off sick due to stress caused by the working practices at the respondent. Grievances were initially not dealt with and an occupational health report concluded that the claimant would not be able to return to her job nor indeed do alternative work within the respondent but did not consider that the claimant met the criteria for ill-health retirement. The claimant eventually resigned on the same day that her sick pay ran out and alleged amongst other things that she should have been put on the redeployment register. The Tribunal found that the respondent was in breach of its duty to make reasonable adjustments; they should have given the claimant an assurance that she would not be put back into the same working environment which had caused her the stress, and they should have considered medical redeployment as an option. The Tribunal also found that the respondent was in breach of the implied term of trust and confidence and the implied term that the respondent will reasonably and promptly afford a reasonable opportunity to employees to obtain redress of any grievance they may have. The respondent challenged the finding that the claimant had not affirmed the contract; they claimed that it was too much of a coincidence that the claimant’s decision to resign took place when her sick pay ran out.&lt;o:p&gt;&lt;/o:p&gt;&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class="MsoNormal"&gt;&lt;span style="mso-ansi-language: EN" lang="EN"&gt;&lt;o:p&gt;&lt;font size="3" face="Times New Roman"&gt; &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/o:p&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA" lang="EN"&gt;The EAT ruled that that the Tribunal’s finding that the respondent should have ‘explored’ medical redeployment was insufficient and did not address the specific reasonable adjustment put forward, namely that the claimant ought to have been placed on the redeployment register. Also, the Tribunal was entitled to find that the failure by the respondent to deal with her grievance was the ‘last straw’ and that the claimant had not affirmed the contract by receiving sick pay.&lt;/span&gt;
</description>
      <link>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/17105/Default.aspx</link>
      <comments>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/17105/Default.aspx#Comments</comments>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&amp;EntryID=17105</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Apr 2011 13:36:07 GMT</pubDate>
      <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
      <trackback:ping>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/DesktopModules/BlogPlus/Trackback.aspx?id=17105</trackback:ping>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
