In Webley v Department for Work and Pensions, the Court of Appeal holds that an employer's practice of refusing to renew fixed-term employment contracts once 51 weeks of service had elapsed was not unlawful under the Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002.
In Coutts & Co plc v Cure; Royal Bank of Scotland v Fraser, the EAT holds that, in a case where an employer refused to pay a non-contractual bonus to all non-permanent employees, including some fixed-term workers, the tribunal did not err in law by holding that the reason for the less favourable treatment was on the ground of the employees' status as fixed-term workers.
In Allen v National Australia Group Europe Ltd, the EAT holds that the tribunal was wrong to decline jurisdiction to hear a claim under the Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002.
In Fraser v Stolt Offshore Ltd [2003] All ER (D) 185 (Apr) EAT, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that an employer can issue a warning to a fixed-term employee that will be valid for a longer period than the fixed-term contract. The warning will carry over into the next contract and the employee does not have to be notified of this when he accepts the next contract.
One of the grounds on which an interval between two contracts of employment does not break continuity is that the employee is absent from work due to a temporary cessation of work. In a decision that will benefit many teachers and temporary workers, the House of Lords holds in Ford v Warwickshire County Council that it is not relevant that the interval was anticipated and lies between two fixed term contracts. The test in all cases is whether the gap is short In relation to the duration of the two contracts.