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.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that an employment tribunal was not wrong to hold that a claim was out of time and there was no continuing act of discrimination. Nor was it wrong not to exercise its discretion to hear the claim on just and equitable grounds.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that an employment tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear claims against British Airways for non-payment of flying allowances to cabin crew who had not been able to fly because of an airport closure.