unfair dismissal
-
Whitelock & Storr & Ors v Khan UKEAT/0017/10/RN
Appeal against decision by the ET that the claimant was unfairly dismissed by reason of having made protected disclosures. The EAT said that the question that the Tribunal should have asked in relation to misconduct alleged by the respondent was whether the respondent had a reasonable belief that whilst employed by them, the claimant had acted to their detriment in breach of his duty of trust and confidence to his employers. If they did have that belief, they then had to decide if that was the reason for dismissal. This question should have been answered before the Tribunal considered the allegation of protected disclosures. Findings in relation to protected disclosure dismissal and unfair dismissal set aside; automatic unfair dismissal finding and counterclaim regarding loss of income to the respondent remitted to a different Tribunal for a re-hearing.
- cases
26/10/2010 14:31
-
Community Integrated Care v Peacock UKEATS/0015/10/BI
Appeal against decision by the ET that, even though the claimant's unfair dismissal claim was presented out of time, they could still hear her case as it was not reasonably practicable for her to have presented her claim in time due to her suffering from depression. The EAT found that the claimant's solicitor had failed to tell her about the 3 month limit. However, they ruled that this was not a case where the claimant’s health was so bad as to lead to the conclusion that even if she had been told about the time limit by her legal advisor she could not reasonably have been expected to be able to instruct the presentation of a claim. The factual findings all pointed to her having been in a position to do so if she had been told about it. Appeal succeeded and claim dismissed.
- cases
26/10/2010 14:13
-
Edem v Egg Plc & Anor [2010] EWCA Civ 480
Application for permission to appeal a ruling that an appeal of 2 orders made by the Employment Judge, one refusing to provide the claimant with clarification as to what documentation was required for his appeal to the EAT, the other clarifying which of the many claims remained live and which had been struck out, had no prospect of success. Second application to re-open the appeal to the Court of Appeal, the claimant claiming that his misconceived application to the House of Lords was rejected too late to enable him to take his case to the ECHR. Both applications refused.
- cases
26/10/2010 11:00
-
TDG Chemical Ltd v Benton UKEAT/0166/10/DM
Appeal against decision by the Employment Tribunal that the claimant was unfairly dismissed, having been dismissed for allegedly mouthing a racist insult to a colleague. The respondent was also appealing against the award of compensation, claiming that the Tribunal had failed to give adequate reasons for its decision on remedy. Appeal dismissed.
- cases
25/10/2010 09:24
-
Weston Recovery Services v Fisher UKEAT/0062/10/ZT
Appeal against a finding of unfair dismissal after the Tribunal concluded that, although the behaviour of the claimant could be described as misconduct, it was not gross misconduct. Therefore the employer was entitled to dismiss him with the proper notice, but not summarily dismiss him. The EAT upheld the appeal, saying that the employer had passed the Burchell test, followed a fair procedure and imposed a sanction, dismissal, which fell within the range of reasonable responses. However, they also said that the claimant had been wrongfully dismissed, so was entitled to notice pay. The award was reduced by the amount of the basic award.
- cases
20/10/2010 15:11
-
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
-
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
-
D v Abercorn Care Ltd UKEATS/0044/09/BI
Appeal against ruling that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed. The claimant claimed that the respondent, by using a piece of evidence at the internal appeal without warning the claimant in advance, had not complied with the statutory dismissal procedures. The EAT agreed with the ET that there was nowhere in the statute that stipulated that any evidence which a party was intending to use at an appeal should be relayed to the other in advance. Even if there was, it was plain on the facts of the case that it was only at the appeal hearing that the respondent decided to refer to the evidence, being prompted into doing so by appeal and grievance letters that were produced by the claimant at that stage. Appeal dismissed.
- cases
05/10/2010 16:13
-
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
-
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
