-
expand
HM Land Registry v Benson and others [2012] IRLR 373 EAT
(1 report relating to this case)
-
expand
HM Land Registry v Grant [2010] IRLR 583 EAT
(1 report relating to this case)
-
- Date:
- 22 April 2010
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that an employment tribunal that held that an employee had been discriminated against on the ground of sexual orientation had failed properly to take into account, among other facts, that the employee had actively “come out” while working at a different office.
-
expand
HM Prison Service and others v Ibimidun [2008] IRLR 940 EAT
(1 report relating to this case)
-
- Date:
- 10 July 2008
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that an employee who was dismissed when he brought tribunal proceedings in order to harass his employer, rather than to receive compensation, was not protected by the victimisation provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976.
-
expand
HM Prison Service v Beart EAT/650/01
(1 report relating to this case)
-
- Date:
- 15 February 2003
The fact that an employee was facing disciplinary proceedings which could have, and in fact did, result in her dismissal did not justify an employer's failure to make a reasonable adjustment under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, holds the EAT in HM Prison Service v Beart.
-
expand
HM Prison Service v Dolby [2003] IRLR 694 EAT
(1 report relating to this case)
-
expand
HM Prison Service v Salmon [2001] IRLR 425 EAT
(1 report relating to this case)
-
- Date:
- 1 July 2001
In HM Prison Service v Salmon, the EAT upholds an award of £20,000 for injury to feelings, including £5,000 aggravated damages, and a separate, undiscounted award of £15,000 for psychiatric injury, made by an employment tribunal that had partially upheld a former prison officer's complaint of unlawful sex discrimination.
-
expand
HM Revenue and Customs v Stringer and others sub nom Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Ainsworth and others [2009] IRLR 677 HL
(1 report relating to this case)
-
- Date:
- 26 August 2009
In HM Revenue and Customs v Stringer and others sub nom Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Ainsworth and others [2009] IRLR 677 HL, the House of Lords held that a claim for unpaid holiday due under the Working Time Regulations 1998 can be brought as an unlawful deductions from wages claim under ss.13 and 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
-
expand
Holis Metal Industries Ltd v GMB and another [2008] IRLR 187 EAT
(2 reports relating to this case)
-
- Date:
- 14 April 2008
In Holis Metal Industries Ltd v GMB and another [2008] IRLR 187, the EAT refused to strike out a claim alleging breach of consultation duties arising pursuant to the TUPE Regulations 2006.
-
- Date:
- 27 February 2008
This article looks at some of the important judgments in the area of the transfer of undertakings over the past year.
-
expand
Hollister v The National Farmers' Union [1979] IRLR 238 CA
(1 report relating to this case)
-
- Date:
- 18 July 1979
The Court of Appeal held, in Hollister v National Farmers' Union, that Mr Hollister's dismissal for refusing to accept the terms of a re-organisation amounted to some other substantial reason for dismissal. And in Banerjee v City & East London AHA, the EAT overturned an Industrial Tribunal's decision that Mr Banerjee's dismissal from his post of part-time consultant surgeon following a decision to replace part-timers with full-timers was for some other substantial reason.
-
expand
Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2012] IRLR 601 SC
(1 report relating to this case)
The Supreme Court sent the case back to the employment tribunal to decide whether or not the employer's actions were justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The employment tribunal decided that the employer's actions were not justified (
Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police ET/1803238/2007).
-
- Date:
- 26 April 2012
The Supreme Court has held that a requirement that employees obtain a law degree before they could be promoted to the highest grade was indirect age discrimination against the claimant, who did not have enough time to complete a degree before he reached the employer's retirement age. However, it sent the case back to the employment tribunal to decide whether or not the employer's actions were justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.