redundancy
-
Burgess v Bear Stearns International Ltd UKEAT/0216/10/LA
Cross-appeal by the respondent, challenging the reasons given by the ET which appeared to determine one of the remedy issues relating to its unfair dismissal ruling. Appeal by the claimant against the rejection of his age discrimination claim. Cross-appeal allowed, appeal dismissed.
- cases
11/02/2011 11:18
-
Morgan v The Welsh Rugby Union UKEAT/0314/10/LA
Appeal against a decision that the claimant had not been unfairly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.
- cases
20/01/2011 16:18
-
Victoria and Albert Museum v Durrant UKEAT/0381/09/DM
Appeal by the respondent against a ruling by the ET that the claimant had been dismissed by reason of redundancy. Appeal allowed and remitted to the same Tribunal to re-consider the reason for dismissal.
- cases
07/01/2011 10:16
-
Arhin v Enfield Primary Care Trust [2010] EWCA Civ 1481
Appeal against decision by the ET, which was upheld by the EAT, that although the claimant had been unfairly dismissed after failing to get a post following a reorganisation, she was not granted any compensatory award because she would have had a zero chance of getting the reorganised post in a competitive selection process. Appeal dismissed.
- cases
31/12/2010 15:52
-
Lancaster University v The University & College Union UKEAT/0278/10/JOJ
Appeal against decision by the ET that the respondent employer had failed to comply with the requirements of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 when making redundancies, and that, if the appeal failed, the protective award should only be 30 days not 60. Cross appeal by the claimant that the protective award should be the maximum 90 days. Appeal and cross appeal dismissed.
- cases
27/10/2010 14:11
-
Fulcrum Pharma (Europe) Ltd v Bonassera & Anor UKEAT/0198/10/DM
Appeal against findings that the employers had failed to consult properly on the size of the pool when considering redundancy and that the pool had to include two people. The EAT found that the ET was correct in the first finding but had erred on the size of the pool and the case was sent back for reconsideration.
- cases
25/10/2010 08:37
-
Pinewood Repro Ltd T/A County Print v Page UKEAT/0028/10/SM
Appeal against ET decision that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed in relation to redundancy. The appeal focussed on the Tribunal’s findings that the respondent had failed to conduct adequate or effective consultation with the claimant by reason of their failure to provide him with an adequate explanation of why he had received lower scores than the two other people in the pool for redundancy, and also the Tribunal’s decision not to make a Polkey deduction. The EAT found that the conclusion the ET came to was simply that the matters relied on by the assessors to mark down the claimant were patently challengeable. On the Polkey issue they agreed with the Tribunal’s analysis there was a reasonable chance that he would not have been dismissed. Appeal dismissed.
- cases
14/10/2010 15:34
-
Semple Fraser LLP v Daly UKEATS/0045/09/BI
Appeal against decision by the ET that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed on the grounds of redundancy. The ET re-marked the scores of the 2 employees at risk of redundancy, found them to be equal and concluded that the claimant had therefore been unfairly dismissed. The EAT disagreed and said that it was not open to the ET to re-mark the scores. Further, if equal scores made dismissal unfair for the claimant, so it would for the other employee. Also, even if different scores could have been reached by another employer that does not show that the respondent acted unreasonably. Appeal allowed and a finding of fair dismissal was substituted.
- cases
05/10/2010 16:14
-
Hammonds LLP & Ors v Mwitta UKEAT/0026/10/ZT
Appeal against decision that the claimant was discriminated against by reason of race, and that she had also been unfairly dismissed. Both appeals succeeded: the race discrimination claim was ordered to be re-heard before a different Tribunal, the unfair dismissal ruling was set aside.
- cases
05/10/2010 16:14
-
Watkins v Jeanette Crouch T/A Temple Bird Solicitors UKEAT/0145/10/ZT
Appeal against a finding by the Tribunal that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed following a redundancy exercise. The EAT found that the Tribunal had not addressed in its decision in any meaningful way the case which was advanced on the claimants’ behalf and thus the ruling could not stand. Appeal succeeded and matter remitted to a different Tribunal for a rehearing.
- cases
16/09/2010 16:09
