In Da'Bell v NSPCC [2010] IRLR 19 EAT, the EAT has confirmed the increase of the Vento bands for compensation for injury to feelings in discrimination cases in line with inflation.
The Court of Appeal has criticised an employment tribunal’s suggestion that tribunals should adopt a “liberal” approach when considering whether or not to extend the time limit for lodging a claim.
In Stuart Peters Ltd v Bell [2009] IRLR 941 CA, the Court of Appeal held that, in a case of constructive unfair dismissal, the Norton Tool principle that compensation for unfair dismissal without notice must include a sum representing the employee's full pay during his or her notice period does not apply, and the employee must give credit for any earnings during this period.
In Kulkarni v Milton Keynes Hospital NHS Trust and Secretary of State for Health [2009] IRLR 829 CA, the Court of Appeal held that NHS doctors subject to disciplinary proceedings are entitled to be represented at any disciplinary hearing by a qualified lawyer instructed by their medical protection organisation.
In Central & North West London NHS Foundation Trust v Abimbola EAT/0542/08, the EAT held that the employment tribunal had wrongly excluded highly relevant factors from its consideration of whether or not it was practicable to order reinstatement following a finding of unfair dismissal.
In Metropolitan Resources Ltd v Churchill Dulwich Ltd (in liquidation) and others [2009] IRLR 700 EAT, the EAT held that, when determining whether or not there has been a service provision change within the meaning of the TUPE Regulations 2006, tribunals should consider if the activities carried out by the alleged transferee are essentially or fundamentally the same as those carried out by the alleged transferor.
In Rank Nemo (DMS) Ltd v Coutinho [2009] EWCA Civ 454 CA, the Court of Appeal held that an employment tribunal had erred in law in refusing to accept a victimisation claim based on the respondent's failure to pay an award of compensation.
In Kirklees Metropolitan Council v Radecki [2009] IRLR 555 CA, the Court of Appeal held that the contract of an employee with whom the employer was negotiating a compromise agreement terminated on the date that the employer stopped paying the employee, even though at that point the draft agreement had not been executed by the parties.