Feltham Management Ltd v Feltham & Ors UKEAT/0201/16/RN

Appeal against findings which determined the EDT (which in turn meant the claims were in time), that no Polkey or contributory fault adjustments should be made to the award and against a finding of sex discrimination. The appeal was allowed in respect of the sex discrimination claim.

This case involved a family dispute in which all family members were employees of the company (the Respondent), apart from the Claimant's husband who worked for the company as a self-employed contractor. The Claimant and other members of the family had a disagreement and the Claimant failed to attend work. She and her husband were then off sick for a while, during which the Claimant was not paid but the husband was. She then wrote to say that she was returning but was told by one of her siblings that she could not return until the issue had been sorted out. This was in August 2013. In October 2014, the company wrote to the Claimant saying that she had resigned the previous year. The Claimant brought claims of unfair dismissal and sex discrimination (on the ground that she had not been paid but her husband had when they were both off sick). The ET found that the EDT was December 2014 (which was the date the company told her she had been taken off the payroll and a P45 had been issued) and this meant that her claims were in time (the company claimed that her EDT was October 2014 which would have time-barred the claims). The ET found that her dismissal was unfair but did not make any deduction for Polkey or contributory fault. They also found that she had suffered sex discrimination. The Respondent appealed against the EDT finding and the decision on all the claims.

The EAT dismissed all of the grounds of appeal apart from the sex discrimination claim. The ET did not err in law in its findings concerning the EDT of the Claimant's employment, nor in its findings concerning the EDT. The ET did not err in its findings concerning contribution and Polkey. The ET's findings of sex discrimination would, however, be remitted for reconsideration as the ET did not sufficiently address the explanation given for the withholding of pay which it found to be direct sex discrimination.


Published: 22/12/2017 11:16

Sign up for free email alerts

Email address
First name
Last name
Receive daily
Receive weekly
I agree to this site's terms and conditions