Crane v. Spectrum (UKEAT/843/99
(Increasing the chance of remaining in employment by calculating the correct Polkey deduction)
Lyons v. Tesco Ltd (UKEAT/1454/00)
(Correct test for less favourable treatment under section 5(1) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995)
Grant v. Kent County Council (UKEAT/0030/01)
(Whether on-call payments were an express or implied term of a contract)
Okoruwa v. Department of Work and Pensions (UKEAT/044/00)
(Extension of time to present a complaint of race discrimination) (IDS Handbook: Race and Religion Discrimination, page 265)
Corcoran v. (1) Harrison Ingram (2) Mr Christopher Shore ( UK EAT/0840/02)
(Appeal against the ET’s interlocutory refusal to allow amendments in a sex discrimination claim)
Royal Mail Group Plc v. Sharma (UKEAT/0466/04)
(The EAT overruled Lindsay v Ironside Ray Vials [1994] ICR 384)
Uzowuru v. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (UKEAT/0869/04)
(Appeal in respect of victimisation based on incorrect application of Barton; and of unfair dismissal under both Section 99 and Section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996)
United Artists Corporation v. Wendt (UKEAT/0886/04)
(Flawed finding of constructive dismissal due to failure to make appropriate findings of fact and to explain what formed the fundamental breach of contract)
Mr C Brien T/A Merafield View Nursing Home v. Crisp (UKEAT/0056/05)
(Polkey/contributory behaviour should have been considered by the Tribunal)
(1) Langley (2) Carter v. Burlo (2 All ER 1104 : (2006) ICR 851 : (2006) IRLR 460 : Times, April 26, 2006)
(Unfair dismissal of employee whilst she was sick. The Tribunal held that she was contractually entitled to full pay for the notice period. That conclusion was overturned on appeal. The Respondent cross appealed on the grounds that in any event she was entitled to unfair dismissal compensation which should have included full pay for the notice period, following the principle enunciated by Sir John Donaldson in Norton Tool v Tewson [1972] ICR 501. The EAT held, by a majority, that this principle was no longer applicable following the decision of the House of Lords in Dunnachie v Kingston Upon Hull City Council [2004] UKHL 36; [2005]1 AC 226; [2004] ICR 1052)
Fowler v. London Borough of Waltham Forest (UKEAT No. 0116/06)
(Disability discrimination appeal against the ET’s decision that not paying a disabled employee sick pay or wages does not amount to less favourable treatment or a failure to make a reasonable adjustment)
Burlo-v-(1 )Langley (2)Carter (2007) 2 All ER 462 : (2007) ICR 390 : (2007) IRLR 145
(The EAT’s decision on the applicability of Norton Tool was reversed. Norton Tool is still good law authority. The narrow principle in Norton Tool had survived the House of Lords decision in Dunnachie v Kingston Upon Hull City Council (2004) UKHL 36, (2005) 1 AC 226 and should continue to be applied in calculating compensation for wages in lieu of notice in unfair dismissal cases until the House of Lords decided otherwise. The Appellant’s appeal failed on the facts. The Court of Appeal held that on the application of the Norton Tool principle, the Appellant was not entitled to any more than her contractually agreed remuneration during her notice period which in this case was statutory sick pay).
Peries v. Wirefast Ltd (UKEAT 0245/06)
(Breach of contract. The question was whether a redundancy policy expressed not to be part of the contract had acquired contractual status.)
Ashley v. City Holdings [2007] (UKEAT 0129/07)
The Employment Tribunal held that the employee’s race discrimination claim was out of time. On appeal it was conceded that the first of the 2 bases of that claim arose out of dismissal and that, pursuant to the EAT’s decision in Lawrence v HM Prison Service (UKEAT/0630/06), no separate grievance was required; and time was extended pursuant to rule 16 of the Dispute Regulations. The second basis of that claim was not pursued. There had been delay and failure to comply with EAT orders by Peninsula; order for costs made against them for an agreed figure.
Arqiva Ltd v. Sagoo (UKEAT 0135/07)
ET in error in failing to apply correct test under Nasse v Science Research Council [1979] IRLR 465 and applying a test of “relevance” instead of necessity.
Ashraf v. The Metropolitan Police Authority (UKEAT 0205/08)
Dismissal for gross misconduct – argument based on disparate treatment of alleged comparators failed on the facts. The matter is being appealed to the Court Appeal.
Olasehinde v Panther Securities Plc (UKEAT 0554/07)
Appellant wrongly and unreasonably accused by employers of sexual harassment. Employers accept his denial but instruct him not seek to discuss the charges with the alleged victim. Appellant subsequently disobeys that instruction and is summarily dismissed. Making of false and unreasonable disciplinary accusations capable of constituting a detriment even though no sanctions were imposed.
Eydatoulah v. Brighton & Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust [2008] (UKEAT 0583/07)
Direct race discrimination, victimisation and protected disclosure claims. Cause of action estoppel, issue estoppel, Henderson v Henderson estoppel. Whether the ET was right in holding that the Appellant was estopped from pursuing claims in a third set of proceedings on the grounds that he was relitigating matters already dealt with or which should have been dealt with in his first and second proceedings and whether the ET should have found that further claims were estopped instead of concluding that there were special circumstances which prevented the claims from being estopped.
Stuart Peters Limited v. Bell (UKEAT 0272/08)
The Norton Tool principle applies to constructive dismissals on the basis of the narrow principle upheld by the Court of Appeal in Langley v Burlo [2007] ICR 290.
Benjamin-Cole v Great Ormond Street Hospital or Sick Children NHS Trust [2010] (UKEAT 0356/09)
Ngo Mbog v Whitbred Group Plc (UKEAT 0510/09)