At Royds Withy King we are still able to serve all your legal needs during the Coronavirus pandemic. Find out more.

Search articles

26 June 2015 0 Comments Posted in Employment, Opinion

Court of Appeal guidance on what constitutes a detriment

Author headshot imagePosted by , Partner

In Deer v University of Oxford the Court of Appeal has held that how an employer handles the grievance of an ex employee can amount to a detriment for the purpose of the individual’s claim for victimisation even though the grievance itself was never going to be upheld. The fact that the outcome of the grievance would not have changed regardless of how it was handled was relevant to compensation but did not, of itself, defeat the victimisation claim and a Tribunal was wrong to strike the claim out purely on the basis that the grievance was unfounded.

Read more

21 May 2015 0 Comments Posted in Employment, Opinion

Ticking fee remission box sufficient to apply for remission

Author headshot imagePosted by , Partner

This case concerns the application for remission of fees when submitting an Employment Tribunal claim online. Deangate Limited v Hatley and others is an EAT case which upheld an Employment Tribunal decision that claims which were presented online were within time even though the fee remission applications were received by the Tribunal after the limitation date had expired. The Employment Tribunal online portal does not currently allow for a fee remission application to be made online but the Claimant must either pay the fee or tick a box indicating that they intend to apply for a fee remission. In these circumstances the EAT held that a claim which is presented online is accompanied by a remission application for the purposes of the rules if the Claimant ticks the box saying that he or she is going to apply for remission of fees. To do otherwise would lead to what they described as the “unhappy consequence” that only Claimants who could afford to pay the fee would be able to present a claim online.

Read more

Public interest test for whistleblower protection

Author headshot imagePosted by , Partner

In the first appellate decision on the public interest test which was inserted into the whistleblowing provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in June 2013, Chesterton Global Limited and another v Nurmohamed is an EAT decision on what can pass the public interest test. Despite the employee’s motivation for making the disclosure being the effect on his and other managers’ commission payments, the manipulation by the company of profit and loss figures was held to pass the public interest test.

Read more

Costs award appropriate despite inability to pay

Author headshot imagePosted by , Partner

In Chadburn v Doncaster and Bassetlaw Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and another, the EAT has upheld a Tribunal decision to award £10,000 of costs in favour of the Respondent against a Claimant who invented discrimination allegations to beef up her unfair dismissal claim. The factors taken into account in this decision make interesting reading.

Read more

Warning in bad faith cannot be used to justify dismissal

Author headshot imagePosted by , Partner

In Way v Spectrum Property Care Limited, the Court of Appeal has overturned the EAT decision that evidence which was not considered by the Employment Tribunal, namely that a final written warning was given in bad faith, would have made no difference to the Tribunal’s finding that dismissing in reliance on that warning was fair.

Read more

“Establishment” is the entity to which a worker is assigned

Author headshot imagePosted by , Partner

In January the Update reported on the Advocate General’s opinion on the referral to the European Court of Justice of the case colloquially known as the Woolworths case, USDAW and another v VW Realisation 1 Limited and others, concerning the dismissal, by Woolworths and Ethel Austin stores in the UK, for redundancy of thousands of employees after the companies went into administration. The Court of Justice of the European Union has now given its decision, which is to follow the A-Gs opinion.

Read more

20 May 2015 0 Comments Posted in Employment, Opinion

Restricted Reporting Order guidance on granting

Author headshot imagePosted by , Partner

The EAT decision in EF and another v AB (Debarred) and others is interesting for its comments on circumstances in which a permanent Restricted Reporting Order will be granted. It illustrates the considerations taken into account in deciding whether this will be granted and how the competing interests of individuals relate to one another.

Read more

Contract can still exist even absent remuneration

Author headshot imagePosted by , Partner

In Stack v Ajar-Tec Limited the Court of Appeal has restored an Employment Tribunal decision that a company director and shareholder who had worked for a company for at least 3 years without being paid, or expecting to be paid, was an employee and a worker and was therefore entitled to bring claims of unfair dismissal, failure to pay holiday pay, and unlawful deduction from wages.

Read more

Diplomatic immunity prevents claims being brought

Author headshot imagePosted by , Partner

In Reyes and another v Al-Malki and another (Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and others intervening) the Court of Appeal has held that the principle of diplomatic immunity takes precedence over the international prohibition on trafficking of people.

Read more

Damages for psychiatric injury caused by drug use non-recoverable

Author headshot imagePosted by , Partner

In AB v Chief Constable of X Constabulary the High Court has held that psychiatric injury suffered by an undercover police officer was not caused by the employer’s breach of its duty of care but instead as a result of his misuse of cocaine.

Read more

7 May 2015 0 Comments Posted in Employment, Opinion

Associative discrimination is possible in indirect discrimination

Author headshot imagePosted by , Partner

In Chez Razpredeleinie Bulgaria, the Advocate General has given an opinion on whether the concept of discrimination by association can be extended from direct to indirect discrimination. The opinion stated that the definition of indirect discrimination in the Race Directive is not inconsistent with the concept of associative discrimination: the fact that the concept had so far only arisen with direct discrimination did not mean it could not also be considered in an indirect discrimination context. However no reasoning was given for the opinion and neither was the precise wording of the difference between the definitions of the two types of discrimination considered.

Read more

Employee’s admissions had impact on employer’s investigation

Author headshot imagePosted by , Partner

In CRO Ports London Limited v Wiltshire, the EAT held that a Tribunal was wrong when it considered the impact made by the employee admitting misconduct on the reasonableness of the employer’s investigation. The employer had relied on the admissions made by the employee during the investigation and at the disciplinary hearing. The question for the Tribunal was whether, in doing so and limiting the scope of its investigation as a result, the employer acted within the range of reasonable responses open to it. The EAT considered that the Tribunal has drawn conclusions about what would have been discovered had it undertaken further investigations and had not appreciated the significance of the admissions which were made at the time.

Read more

Search articles