Latest Cases

Employment tribunal – Striking out. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employee's appeal against the employment tribunal's decision to strike out his case, ruled that the tribunal had been correct in its decision to strike out the employee's claims on the basis that they lacked merit. 

Unfair dismissal – Determination whether dismissal fair or unfair. The employment tribunal found that the employer had failed in its duty to consider any reasonable adjustments when it had rejected the employee's internal appeal against her dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employer's appeal, held, inter alia, that the tribunal had erred in law by, amongst other things, deciding that there was a need for active consideration of the duty to make reasonable adjustments. 

Contract – Construction. The claimant lenders brought a claim against the defendant borrowers on the basis of a personal loan agreement. The defendants challenged the authenticity of the purported load agreement. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claimants had failed to discharge the burden that the agreement was what it purported to be and, accordingly, the action failed and would be dismissed. 

Employment tribunal – Striking out. The employee's unfair dismissal claim had been struck out by the employment tribunal due to non-compliance with an 'Unless Order'. The employee appealed against the striking out of his claim. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) found the order unclear, ambiguous and thus incapable of taking effect as an order striking out the claim. Accordingly, the employee's appeal was allowed. 

Employment – Trade union. The employee, a member of an independent trade union, WEU, succeded before the employment tribunal on four claims of detriment for taking part in WEU's activities. The employer appealed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the appeal, held that, in respect of the four claims on which the tribunal had found for the employee, it had, in one way or another, reached erroneous conclusions and that there was no need or purpose or justification in remitting the case to the tribunal. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. The employment tribunal rejected the employee's claim for unfair dismissal on the basis, having regard to the effective date of termination (EDT), it had been brought out of time. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employee's appeal against that decision, held that in the light of established authority such as Cort (Robert) & Son Ltd v Charman [1981] IRLR 437, when calculating the three-month primary time limit under s 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, s 97(2) of that act did not allow for the addition of statutory notice entitlement under s 86. Consequently, the tribunal had correctly identified the EDT, with the result that the employee's claim had been out of time. 

Proceeds of crime – Disclosure order: Court of Session: Refusing a motion by a respondent, in respect of whom the Scottish Ministers had been granted a disclosure order in terms of s 391 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, inviting the court to vary the disclosure order so that he should not be required to answer questions relating to alleged money laundering offences, the court held that the petitioners were not investigating money laundering offences, and standing that the court had authorised disclosure in the context of a civil recovery investigation, they had authority to require the respondent to attend for interview and to answer any relevant questions. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. An employee unsuccessfully applied to the employment tribunal for leave to amend her claim form to add: (i) detriments suffered by reason of protected disclosures to her existing unfair dismissal claim; and (ii) a claim for detrimental treatment by way of public interest disclosure. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) allowed the employee's appeal in respect of the first proposed amendment on the basis that the tribunal ought to have given separate consideration to that claim, which had been closely linked to the existing unfair dismissal claim. However, the EAT took the view that the tribunal had not erred in law in refusing permission to amend to add the second claim. 

Vexatious proceedings – Employment tribunal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) granted the application by the Attorney General for an order pursuant to s 33 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 restricting the respondent from bringing further vexatious proceedings. The EAT found that 30 claims and numerous applications brought by the respondent in the employment tribunal had almost all been weak or hopeless and had been conducted vexatiously. The EAT was satisfied that it was necessary to make the order sought for an indefinite period. 

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.