Latest Cases

Employment – Disability. The employment tribunal had determined that the employee had not suffered from a disability within the meaning of s 6 of the Equality Act 2010. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employee's appeal, held that the tribunal had erred in its approach to various questions of fact which it ought to have addressed but had failed to do so, namely, whether the employee's disability was being controlled by drugs and whether its effects were likely to recur. Accordingly, the matter would be remitted to a differently constituted employment tribunal. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. The employment tribunal, having struck out the employee's claims in his absence, invited the employee, upon his late arrival to the hearing, to address it on whether it should review that decision. The employee said that he had been having a psychotic episode and, although he had no medical evidence, the tribunal observed that he exhibited considerable signs of disquiet. The tribunal did not adjourn and declined to revoke the judgment. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that, in the circumstances, the tribunal's failure to consider an adjournment and to require the employee to continue with his application, notwithstanding his evident ill-health and lack of relevant documentation, was so obviously wrong that the employee's appeal had to succeed. 

Employment – Discrimination. The employment tribunal, having found that the employer was liable for sex discrimination and harassment of the employee, ordered that it pay the employee an award for injury to feelings, which would be subject to a 25% uplift for failure to follow the ACAS Code on Discipline and Grievance at Work 2009. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employer's appeal, held that the award was manifestly too high and that there was no basis for the uplift. Accordingly, the award would be substituted for a smaller amount and the judgment on the uplift would be quashed. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. In considering the employee's claim for unlawful deduction from wages, the employment tribunal had taken it upon itself to find that the employer had breached his obligation to provide the employee with a statement of the principal terms and conditions of her employment, a claim which was not made in the employee's ET1. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employer's appeal, held, inter alia, that the tribunal had erred in raising and adjudicating upon that claim when the employer had neither notice of it nor an opportunity to respond. Further, the tribunal had failed to identify any statutory defences that there might have been. 

Employment tribunal – Practice. The employment tribunal had accepted the employer's limitation application but indicated that, even if the employee's complaints were out of time, it would extend time under the just and equitable escape clause for all claims. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employer's appeal, held that, instead of considering first whether the claims had been in time as part of a continuing state of affairs, the tribunal had jumped straight to the just and equitable escape clause without hearing full submissions from the parties' representatives. There was, therefore, procedural irregularity and, accordingly, the limitation issue would be remitted to the same tribunal for re-hearing. 

Unfair dismissal – Redundancy. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), in dismissing the employee's appeal against the employment tribunal's finding that the employee had been unfairly dismissed, ruled that it had been wrong for the employment tribunal to substitute its own view for that of the employer in relation to the redundancy pool issue. However, it found that the tribunal had gone on to made further findings as to the selection process, which had supported its conclusions that: (1) the dismissal had been unfair; and (2) for the purpose of the complaints of race discrimination, the burden of proof had shifted and the employer had not discharged that burden. Accordingly, the EAT affirmed the tribunal's findings notwithstanding its conclusion on the redundancy pool issue. 

Race relations – Discrimination. The Queen's Bench Division found, inter alia, that the claimant's claim of racial discrimination was proved in respect of some aspects of her treatment on the evening of her arrest. Her claim under art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights was not made out. 

Animal – Dangerous animal. The claimant Badger Trust challenged a decision taken by the defendant Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to continue the culling of badgers by controlled shooting in two pilot areas. The claimant submitted that it had been given an expectation that the culling would be subject to consideration by an individual expert panel. The Administrative Court held that the claimant had had no legitimate expectation of the nature alleged, and dismissed the claim. 

Employment – Discrimination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled on three linked appeals concerning the employment tribunal's decisions in respect of the employee's claim for race discrimination, namely: (i) the employee's appeal against the tribunal's decision to reject her race discrimination claim; (ii) the employer local authority's appeal against the tribunal's decision that a named employee had been party to discrimination against the employee; and (iii) the employer's appeal against the tribunal's decision at the remedy hearing to hear the employee on the issue of extension of time. 

Unfair dismissal – Constructive dismissal. The employment tribunal awarded an employee compensation following its decision that the employee had been unfairly constructively dismissed. In ruling on the employer's appeal against the compensatory award made to the employee, the Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled that the tribunal had erred only in basing its calculation of the award for breach of contract on the employee's higher salary in the previous position he had been in before accepting his more recent junior position. Accordingly, the other grounds of appeal would be dismissed and the matter would be remitted to the same tribunal for consideration.