Cases within J

• expand

  J & J Stern v Simpson [1983] IRLR 52 EAT (1 report relating to this case)

  • Dismissal: Words of dismissal viewed in context

    Date:

    8 February 1983

    The Court of Appeal has established that if words of dismissal or resignation are unambiguous, they cannot be overridden by appeals to what a reasonable employee or employer might have taken them to mean. J & J Stern v Simpson the EAT holds that that does not mean that the words must initially be viewed in isolation, but that the surrounding circumstances are relevant to whether the words used are ambiguous.

• expand

  J Terry v East Sussex County Council [1976] IRLR 332 EAT (1 report relating to this case)

  • Unfair dismissal: Different standard of fairness for temporary employees

    Date:

    1 October 1977

    When the fixed term contract of a temporary employee expires without being renewed, the test of fairness may be less stringent than would be adopted for an employee whose status was not seen from the start as temporary. This is one of the points to emerge from Gwent County Council v Lane and Terry v East Sussex County Council.

• expand

  J v DLA Piper UK LLP [2010] IRLR 936 EAT (1 report relating to this case)

  • Disability discrimination: Difference between "despondency, demotivation and anxiety" and "clinical depression"

    Date:

    27 October 2010

    In J v DLA Piper UK LLP [2010] IRLR 936 EAT, the EAT held that, in considering whether or not the employee was disabled, the tribunal was wrong to exclude the evidence of a GP as being "not expert". In remitting the case to the tribunal, it emphasised that there is a difference between "despondency, demotivation and anxiety" caused by problems at work and "clinical depression".

• expand

  Jackson v Computershare Investor Services plc [2008] IRLR 70 CA (2 reports relating to this case)

  • TUPE case law update

    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.

  • Transfer of undertakings: TUPE confers no additional rights on employees

    Date:

    11 January 2008

    In Jackson v Computershare Investor Services plc [2007] EWCA Civ 1065, the Court of Appeal ruled that the provision in the TUPE Regulations to the effect that a transferred contract of employment will have effect after the transfer as if originally made between the employee and the transferee could not be construed so as to give the employee a contractual benefit to which she had not been entitled under her original contract.

• expand

  Jackson v Liverpool City Council [2011] IRLR 1009 CA (1 report relating to this case)

  • Court of Appeal finds reference containing unsubstantiated allegations not unfair

    Date:

    26 September 2011

    The Court of Appeal has held that a reference raising unsubstantiated concerns about an ex-employee's performance was not unfair. 

• expand

  Jacobs v LCC [1950] AC 361 HL (1 report relating to this case)

  • Jacobs v LCC

    Date:

    31 December 1950

    In Jacobs v LCC [1950] AC 361 HL, the House of Lords held that a woman who had been injured as a result of tripping on a protruding water supply stopcock on council property had been a licensee not an invitee and that the cause of the trip did not amount to a public nuisance adjoining the highway.

• expand

  James v Eastleigh Borough Council [1990] IRLR 288 HL (2 reports relating to this case)

  • Gender-based criteria are directly discriminatory

    Date:

    1 September 1990

    In James v Eastleigh Borough Council (14 June 1990) EOR33B, the House of Lords holds that the test for determining whether there has been direct discrimination is "would the complainant have received the same treatment from the defendant but for his or her sex?". It is not necessary for complainants to prove in addition that the subjective reason they were treated less favourably was because of their gender.

  • Sex discrimination: Lords approve "but for" test in direct discrimination cases

    Date:

    17 July 1990

    In a sex discrimination case the crucial question is whether the complainant would have received the same treatment but for his or her sex.

• expand

  James v London Borough of Greenwich [2007] IRLR 168 EAT (1 report relating to this case)

  • Employment status: No employment contract between worker and end user

    Date:

    1 May 2007

    In James v London Borough of Greenwich [2007] IRLR 168 EAT the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that an employment tribunal properly decided that there was no implied contract of employment between an agency worker and the end user for whom she had worked for three years.

• expand

  James v London Borough of Greenwich [2008] IRLR 302 CA (1 report relating to this case)

  • Employment status: Agency worker was not employed by end user

    Date:

    21 March 2008

    In James v London Borough of Greenwich [2008] EWCA Civ 35, the Court of Appeal held that, in the absence of an express contract between an agency worker and the end user, a contract will be implied only where it is necessary to do so to give business reality to the situation.

• expand

  James v Redcats (Brands) Ltd [2007] IRLR 296 EAT (1 report relating to this case)

  • James v Redcats (Brands) Ltd

    Date:

    11 April 2007

    In James v Redcats (Brands) Ltd [2007] IRLR 296 EAT, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has given guidance on the definition of a worker under the national minimum wage legislation.