cases
-
Agnew & Ors v North Lanarkshire Council UKEATS/0029/09/BI
Appeal by employees in claims for unlawful deductions from wages against decision by the ET that a term in a collective agreement could be incorporated into individual contracts and so the respondents could implement a new pay regime. Appeal dismissed.
- cases
05/10/2010 16:10
-
Wood v Caledon Social Club Ltd (Debarred) & Anor UKEAT/0528/09/CEA
Appeal against a decision by the ET that there was no TUPE transfer in a claim of unfair dismissal because the temporary cessation of the economic entity, in this case a bar, prevented a relevant transfer. The EAT ruled that the economic entity had not ceased, it had merely been suspended until the bar re-opened, and thus there was a relevant transfer. Appeal allowed.
- cases
30/09/2010 15:05
-
Bloxwich Fencing Ltd v Banks UKEAT/0469/09/DM
Appeal against a judgment of the ET that the claimant had been unfairly constructively dismissed and had not failed to mitigate his losses. The respondent claimed that the grievance was raised in without prejudice discussions and thus did not comply with the now repealed Section 32 of the Employment Act 2002. However, this point had been conceded in the ET when the case of Arnold Clark Automobiles v Stewart had been brought to the attention of the respondent. The EAT ruled that the ET therefore had not erred in deciding that the grievance satisfied the statutory grievance procedures. Alleged failure by the claimant to mitigate his losses was also rejected by the EAT. Appeal dismissed.
- cases
30/09/2010 15:04
-
Royal Bank of Scotland v Chaer UKEAT/0429/09/DM
Appeal against ruling by the Tribunal that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed due to the respondent employer not carrying out a proper investigation. Appeal dismissed.
- cases
30/09/2010 15:03
-
Easwaran v St George's University of London UKEAT/0167/10/CEA
Appeal against ruling by a Tribunal that the protected disclosure relied upon by the claimant in an unfair dismissal claim was not a qualifying disclosure. The EAT found that the ET was entitled to conclude that the claimant had not shown sufficient evidence to prove that he had a reasonable belief that the respondent had failed to comply with a legal obligation. Appeal dismissed.
- cases
30/09/2010 15:02
-
Owolowo v Family Mosaic Housing Association UKEAT/0160/10/ZT
Appeal against refusal to extend time for claims of discrimination and unfair dismissal. The EAT found that, even if the claimant, a litigant in person, had not specifically raised the point that he genuinely thought there was an ongoing procedure in relation to his dismissal, it should have been considered by the Tribunal Judge in light of the ET1. Appeal succeeded and remitted to the same Employment Judge.
- cases
30/09/2010 15:01
-
Merrick (Formerly T/A WM A Merrick & Co Solicitors) v Fearon Vaughan Simpson UKEAT/0349/10/ZT
Appeal against a direction of the Tribunal that a strike out application, relating to unfair dismissal, should be heard by a full Employment Tribunal. The appeal was allowed: the EAT ruled that the full merits hearing listed should instead be used for a pre-hearing review, the only question to be decided to be whether or not the claimant claiming unfair dismissal had a reasonable prospect of success.
- cases
30/09/2010 15:00
-
Nixon v Ross Coates Solicitors & Anor UKEAT/0108/10/ZT
Appeal against a ruling that, although the Tribunal found in the claimant’s favour in respect of unfair constructive dismissal, the claimant had not suffered sex or pregnancy-related discrimination. Second appeal relating to the reduction in compensation. Cross appeal by the employer against the ruling of unfair dismissal. Appeals succeeded, cross appeal failed.
- cases
30/09/2010 14:54
-
Hussain v Acorn Independent College Ltd UKEAT/0199/10/SM
Appeal against Tribunal’s ruling that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claimant’s claim of unfair dismissal because he did not have the requisite 1 year period of service. Appeal allowed.
- cases
30/09/2010 14:53
-
G v Gardiner & Theobald LLP UKEAT/0191/10/SM
Appeal against a decision that the claimant's ET1 did not include a claim for Equal Pay, and that if an amendment was sought, it would be refused. Whilst it was noted that the details on the ET1 could be minimalist, there was still a requirement for a minimum amount of information to explain what the claim was about. The EAT agreed that the ET1 contained a claim for sex discrimination but not equal pay. Appeal dismissed.
- cases
26/09/2010 13:18
