Agricultural & Rural Law

Global Crossing (UK) Telecommunications Ltd v Mr N H Jones UKEAT/0145/08

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:09:00 GMT

Contract of Employment - Damages for breach of contract

The proper approach to the assessment of damages for breach of a contract of employment in a case of wrongful dismissal is that explained in Shove v Downs Surgical plc [1984] IRLR 17.

Mr William Loxley v BAE Systems Land Systems (Munitions & Ordinance) Ltd UKEAT/0156/08

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:53:00 GMT

Age Discrimination

The claimant was excluded by the terms of a voluntary redundancy scheme because he had reached the age of 60. There were tapering provisions in place between the ages of 57-60. When the scheme was originally introduced it was compulsory to retire at 60, but later the retirement age was changed to 65. The scheme was not amended in the light of that. The claimant submitted that the scheme directly discriminated against him on grounds of age discrimination. The ET rejected his claim.

The EAT upheld the appeal and held that there was no adequate analysis of the aims of thescheme nor the issue of proportionality. The case was remitted to a fresh tribunal.

Margaret Gardner v John Curran – Wick Sheriff Court, 15 July 2008

Wed, 23 Jul 2008 19:33:00 GMT

This case concerned the tenancy of a croft. The Pursuer/ Respondent was the widow of the tenant and the Defender/ Appellant was the Executor Nominate of the landlord of the croft at the time of the tenant’s death. The tenant had left a Will in which he did not make specific reference to the tenancy of the croft but directed that the residue of his estate was to pass to the Pursuer. In terms of s10 the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993, a crofter could bequeath the tenancy of his croft to a family member. Sections 16 (1) and (2) of the Succession (Sc) Act 1964 also deal with the bequest of a tenant's interest under a Lease. The Pursuer sought a Declarator that the tenancy of the croft had passed to her under the terms of her late husband’s will as part of the residue of his Estate and in accordance with Section 10 of the 1993 Act. She contended that, on a proper construction of the will, the residue clause was effective to pass the tenancy of the croft to her. The Defender maintained that the will did not do so as it contained no specific bequest of the croft to the Pursuer. The Sheriff found in favour of the Pursuer. The Defender argued on appeal that construing the relevant statutory provisions appropriately confirmed that there had to be a specific bequest of the tenancy of the croft to one person and, in the absence of such a specific bequest, the tenancy fell into intestacy. A number of authorities were referred to in support of this argument. In response, the Pursuer argued that the issue was purely one of construction of the deceased’s will in light of the relevant statutory provision - Section 10 (1) of the 1993 Act. The correct approach was to ascertain what the deceased’s intention had been from the terms of the will and, if the Court was satisfied that he had intended to dispose of the tenancy of his croft, to determine whether or not he had succeeded in doing so. The Sheriff Principal agreed with the Pursuer. The question was whether, by the residue clause of his will, the deceased had intended to bequeath, and did bequeath, the residue of his whole Estate, including as it did the tenancy of his croft, to the Pursuer. The Sheriff Principal considered that the Sheriff had reached the correct conclusion and he refused the Appeal.

MrJ Kotecha v (1) Insurety Plc t/a Capita Health Care (2) Mr D Abingdon (3) Mr C Bell (4) Mr P Smith (5) Mr D Riley UKEAT/0461/07

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 08:44:00 GMT

Practice and Procedure - Costs

Position of costs order made by Tribunal because of conduct where the ground upon which an appeal is allowed is independent of and unrelated to the reasons for which the Tribunal made the costs order.

Tor Corporate A.S. v. Siopect Group Start Petroleum Corporation Ltd and Others For Judicial Review of a Decision of Arbiters 2008 CSIH 9 P1890/06

Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:39:00 GMT

Reclaiming Motion - Petition for judicial review, the petitioners were seeking to set aside an arbitral award. The dispute which was submitted to arbitration arose out of a contract between the petitioners and the first respondents in terms of which the petitioners were to act as managers of a semi-submersible drilling unit owned by the first respondents. A preliminary issue had arisen as to whether the application for setting aside the award was timeously made. That issue was debated before the Lord Ordinary at a first hearing. It was held that the application had not been timeously made and therefore by interlocutor dated 29 May 2007 dismissed the petition. The petitioners were now seeking review of that interlocutor.

Royal Mail Group PLC v (1) Mr R Double & (2) Mr M Dennis UKEAT/0265/07/RN

Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:35:00 GMT

Unfair dismissal - Tribunal procedure

The Employment Tribunal erred in failing to go through the steps required for conduct dismissals approved in BHS v Burchell, Sainsbury’s v Hitt, and Queen Elizabeth Hospital NHS Trust v Ogunlana. Although it is not an error for an Employment Tribunal not to set out in its reasons all of the matters in Employment Tribunal Rule 30(6), there are likely to be difficulties in understanding the Judgment if it does not. Case remitted to a fresh Employment Tribunal and conciliation directed.

The Chief Constable of West Midlands Police v (1) Susan Elizabeth Blackburn & (2) Victoria Jane Manley UKEAT/0007/07/MAA

Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:29:00 GMT

Equal Pay Act – Material factor defence

The claimant police officers received less than their male comparator doing like work. The reason was that he worked shifts involving night work and received a special payment (effectively a bonus) for this, but they did not work those hours because they were incompatible with their child care responsibilities. The Tribunal held that it was a legitimate objective to reward night work, but that the Chief Constable could have paid the claimants as though they had done night work, even though they had not. It would not have been a significant expenditure and would have eliminated the discrimination. The EAT upheld the Chief Constable’s appeal and held that the Tribunal had misunderstood the nature of the justification defence and had erred in concluding that the differential was not reasonably justified.