Employment tribunals and courts
Richard Ryan, associate, Helen Ward, associate, and Tori O'Neil, trainee solicitor, Addleshaw Goddard, detail the latest rulings.
The Court of Appeal has held that, where a claimant is alleging that separate incidents form one continuous act for the purposes of extending the normal time limit within which to bring a claim for racial discrimination, a relevant but not conclusive factor is whether the same individuals or different individuals were involved in the separate incidents.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that employees, who successfully claim discrimination, are entitled to be compensated for any injury to health or injury to feelings caused by the act complained of, even if they were unaware that the act complained of was discriminatory.
In Muschett v HM Prison Service [2010] EWCA Civ 25 CA, the Court of Appeal held that an agency worker had neither a contract of employment nor a contract with the end user personally to carry out work. Accordingly, he could not bring complaints of unfair or wrongful dismissal, or of unlawful discrimination, against the end user.
In Chagger v Abbey National plc and another [2009] EWCA Civ 1202 CA, the Court of Appeal confirmed that employment tribunals should ask a Polkey-type question when considering loss of earnings flowing from a discriminatory dismissal. The Court also ruled that, in appropriate cases, compensation for loss of earnings may include an element of "stigma" loss.
In Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher and others [2010] IRLR 70 CA, the Court of Appeal held that a group of car valeters were employees, despite the fact that their written contracts with the valeting company stated that they were independent contractors, and contained clauses allowing "substitution of labour" and the "right to refuse work".
The Court of Appeal has held that an employee who was employed under a series of fixed-term contracts and whose contract was terminated could bring a claim of unfair dismissal despite the fact that he was employed to work outside Great Britain. Territorial limitations to unfair dismissal rights should be modified where necessary to enable a right emanating from European law to be enforced.
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.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to employment tribunals and courts.