Amicus v Nissan Motor
Manufacturing (UK) Ltd ( EAT )
COLLECTIVE
CONSULTATION
Consultation with
union representatives that has commenced
several months after the employer had
announced relocation proposals had begun
“in good time” because the proposals
were still at the formative stage when
consultation with the union took place.
Baynton v South West
Trains Ltd ( EAT )
LIMITATION PERIOD
Just & equitable to
extend time since claim brought 2 days
outside 3 month limitation period and no
real prejudice caused to R.
Edmund Nuttall Ltd v
Butterfield ( EAT )
DISABILITY
DISCRIMINATION
Not discrimination to
dismiss a mentally impaired employee who
had a tendency to expose himself. Such
tendency not covered within the
definition of a disability under s.1 of
the DDA.
Judge v Crown Leisure
Ltd (CA)
CONTRACT
A promise made at a
Christmas party to C regarding his
remuneration was held not enforceable,
as the words used had been too uncertain
to give rise to a contract.
Mainstream Properties
Ltd v Young and others (CA)
TORT OF INTERFERENCE
WITH CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS.
Tort requires proof
of a specific subjective intention to
interfere with the contract. Mere
carelessness or recklessness is not
enough. Financing two ex-employees to
set up in business in competition did
not amount to tort.
Melia v Magna Kansei
Ltd (CA)
WHISTLEBLOWING -
DAMAGES
Damages awarded to a
whistleblower could include a period
from the start of detriment up to, but
not including the date of termination.
W’blower cannot receive damages for
injury to feelings for unfair dismissal
Miles and another v
Gilbank ( EAT )
DISCRIMINATION –
JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY
A manager who
consciously encouraged and fostered
discrimination against a pregnant worker
was jointly and severally liable for the
damages.
Morgan v Alpha Plus
Security Ltd ( EAT )
UNFAIR DISMISSAL –
REMEDY - BENEFITS
Incapacity benefit
must be deducted from compensatory
award, in order that the Claimant does
not receive more than he would otherwise
be entitled to.
Murray v Leisureplay
plc (CA)
CONTRACT – PENALTY
CLAUSES
A clause will only be
held to be a penalty if the party
seeking to avoid the terms can
demonstrate that the sum payable on
breach is “extravagant or
unconscionable”.
Perkin v St George’s
Healthcare NHS Trust (CA)
UNFAIR DISMISSAL -
REASON
CA confirms that it
is a potentially fair reason to dismiss
a senior employee because of the effects
their “personality” has on the
organisation, even when there is no
issue as to their technical competence
or their integrity.
Rose v Dodd (CA)
INTERVENTION BY THE
LAW SOCIETY
Effect of
intervention by the Law Society into the
running of a solicitors’ firm, in
particular employees’ contracts.
Shah v Haden Building
Management Ltd ( EAT )
PROCEDURE
Service of notice of
PHR by ET on representatives was valid,
despite the fact that the solicitor had
specified to opponent that they were not
formally instructed
The Interactive
Law Group