Topics

Employment tribunals and courts

New and updated

  • Date:
    31 March 2010
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Taylor v XLN Telecom Ltd and others

    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.

  • Date:
    30 March 2010
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Employment status: Agency worker was not protected from discrimination by end user

    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.

  • Date:
    24 February 2010
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Race discrimination: Polkey principle applies to compensation for dismissal

    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.

  • Date:
    10 February 2010
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Employment status: Express contractual terms specifying self-employment did not reflect terms agreed

    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".

  • Date:
    27 January 2010
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    (1) Duncombe and others (2) Fletcher v Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families

    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.

  • Date:
    26 January 2010
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Compensation for injury to feelings: EAT increases Vento compensation in line with inflation

    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.

  • Date:
    14 January 2010
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police v Caston

    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.

  • Date:
    9 December 2009
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Unfair dismissal: Norton Tool principle does not apply to unfair constructive dismissal

    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.

  • Type:
    How to

    How to respond to an employment tribunal claim

    Practical guidance on responding to an employment tribunal claim, including the 28-day time limit for submitting the ET3; grounds for resisting the claim; pleading in the alternative; and counterclaims.

  • Date:
    28 October 2009
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Disciplinary hearings: Doctors entitled to legal representation at disciplinary hearings

    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.

About this topic

HR and legal information and guidance relating to employment tribunals and courts.