Cases - Employment Appeal Tribunal
-
Purohit v Hospira UK Ltd - claim dismissed for "jumping the gun" - and costs properly ordered
09/11/11
A claim of harassment by virtue of an employer's alleged failure to investigate can be misconceived if that claim is brought before the employer has even had a reasonable chance to investigate.
-
Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Weeks - Commissioner liable for actions of his officer in management of other staff
22/11/11
Chief Officer of police is liable for the discriminatory actions of his officers in their management of other staff, albeit those officers are technically not his employees, because statute law deems them to be his employees.
-
Simpson v Strathclyde Police & Anor - calculating amount of deposit order
10/01/12
When a Employment Judge orders that a deposit be paid in order to continue a claim, there are no requirements to calculate the amount in any particular way: provided the figure is a reasonable one in all the circumstances the EAT will not interfere.
-
Vetco Gray UK Ltd v Garden - was interpretation of policies open to employer as "reasonable employer"?
11/01/12
Where an employee is dismissed for breach of his employer's policies, the tribunal must ask not whether the employee's interpretation of those policies was correct, but rather whether that interpretation was one that was open to a reasonable employer in all the circumstances.
-
Weatherford UK Ltd v Forbes - Scots employment judge could not order disclosure of documents held in USA by US company
20/12/11
The powers of an Employment Judge sitting in a tribunal in Scotland (or England & Wales) to order disclosure of documents are limited to those of a Sheriff (or County Court). Accordingly there is no competence to order disclosure of material which was created by, and is in the possession of, a person outside of Great Britain.
-
Forthcoming cases in the EAT for week commencing 23rd January 2012
23/01/12
The Cause Lists, showing cases listed for hearing during week commencing 23rd January 2012 in the EAT in England & Wales and in Scotland.
-
Sharma v New College Nottingham - deposit should not be ordered where central core of facts is in dispute
01/12/11
An employment tribunal should approach the question of ordering a deposit for a claim to continue in the same was as it would striking it out completely: if there is a disputed central core of facts the matter should proceed to a full hearing without such an order, which is "serious and potentially fatal" to a claim.
-
Whitbread v Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust - from when does 42 day appeal time limit run?
23/11/11
(i) An appeal to the EAT must be lodged within 42 days of the date that the tribunal judgment was sent to the parties (not the date the judgment was entered in the Register);
(ii) It is not reasonable to await the outcome of a Review before lodging Notice of Appeal (and thus seek an extension of the time limit for doing so) - an appeal should be lodged in any event.
-
Roberts v North West Ambulance Service - no requirement that PCP be specifically applied to disabled person
24/01/12
In disability discrimination reasonable adjustments cases, the primary question is whether a provision, criterion or practice (PCP) was applied by the employer that placed the disabled person at a substantial disadvantage - if so, the duty to make reasonable adjustments is triggered. There is no requirement that the PCP actually be applied to the disabled person, and substantial disadvantage may still be caused even if the disabled person has been specifically exempted from it.
-
Amin v Wincanton Group Ltd - failure to provide full F&BPs does not go to the tribunal's jurisdiction.
25/01/12
An employment tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider a complaint which has not been pleaded at all. However, the failure to include a matter in Further & Better Particulars, even where these have been ordered to set out the complete allegations in the case, does not deprive the tribunal of jurisdiction to consider that matter provided it was an allegation in the original claim. The Respondent's remedy is to apply to strike out that part of the claim for failure to comply with the order to provide F&BPs.
