Latest Cases

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The parents were separated. The mother applied to the court for permission to take their six-year-old son to India, where he had relatives, for three weeks. The Family Court held that the balance came down against granting the mother's application. Comments were made concerning the actions of the Legal Aid Agency with regard, among other things, to the appointment of an expert in Indian law. 

Redundancy – Dismissal by way of redundancy. The employee had been dismissed ostensibly for redundancy. The employer appealed against the finding by the employment tribunal that the employee had been unfairly dismissed, contending that the tribunal had applied the wrong test in determining the reason for the employee's dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employer's appeal, ruled that, on the facts found, the dismissal had been for redundancy. Accordingly, the tribunal had applied the wrong test and the case was remitted to the same tribunal to consider the provisions of s 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. 

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. 

Professional misconduct – Medical practitioner. The appellant was a nurse. In October 2012, the appellant pleaded guilty to two charges of fraud. As a result of the convictions, the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) brought disciplinary proceedings against the appellant. A panel of the Conduct and Competence Committee of the NMC (the panel) ruled that the appellant's fitness to be practise had been impaired and ordered that she be struck off. The appellant appealed against the sanction imposed. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the panel was entitled to conclude that no sanction short of striking off would be appropriate. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. Applying the approach in Mensah v East Hertfordshire NHS Trust [1998] IRLR 531 , the Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) dismissed the employee's appeal, upholding the employment tribunal's finding that the employee's claims of unfair dismissal and discrimination were time-barred as they had been filed beyond the three-month limitation period. 

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. 

Unfair dismissal – Determination whether dismissal fair or unfair. The Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled that the employment tribunal had based its finding of unfair dismissal on a plain misunderstanding of the employer's grievance policy. Further, the employee had not wanted such a hearing and the employer had the discretion to proceed straight to a disciplinary investigation under the policy. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and a finding of a fair dismissal was substituted. 

Unfair dismissal – Constructive dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) allowed the employee's appeal against a decision of the employment tribunal that his claims to have been constructively unfairly dismissed and having suffered detriment for having made a public interest disclosure should be struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. Accordingly, the employee's claims were remitted for re-hearing by a newly constituted tribunal. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. By way of an administrative error, the employee's case before the employment tribunal was heard by a single judge, rather than a three person-panel, as requested by the employee. The tribunal dismissed the claim and awarded costs against the employee. In allowing the employee's appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal decided that the error in the composition of the tribunal's panel had been fundamental. It further held that the reasons given by the tribunal were not sufficiently clear to show why the case had been dismissed. Consequently, the case was remitted to a freshly constituted tribunal comprising three members. 

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.