Topics

End of employment

New and updated

  • Date:
    15 February 1993
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Judicial review: Pit closures without use of review procedure were unlawful

    British Coal had a statutory obligation to use a review procedure agreed with the trade unions in relation to proposed pit closures, holds the High Court in R v British Coal Corporation and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry ex parte Vardy and others.

  • Date:
    1 October 1992
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Frames Snooker Centre v Boyce

    In Frames Snooker Centre v Boyce [1992] IRLR 472 EAT, the EAT held that where any one of a group of employees could have committed a particular offence meriting dismissal, the fact that one or more of them was not dismissed does not make the dismissals of the remainder unfair if the employer is able to show that it had "solid and sensible grounds", which do not have to be related to the relevant offence, for differentiating between members of the group.

  • Date:
    1 June 1992
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    De Grasse v Stockwell Tools Ltd

    In De Grasse v Stockwell Tools Ltd [1992] IRLR 269 EAT, the EAT held that the Industrial Tribunal had erred in holding that the appellant employee's dismissal on grounds of redundancy was fair, notwithstanding that there had been no prior consultation or warning.

  • Date:
    1 May 1992
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Dismissal: Special circumstances should delay acceptance of resignation

    In Kwik-Fit (GB) Ltd v Lineham the EAT holds that an industrial tribunal was entitled to find that an employee who resigned in the heat of the moment was dismissed unfairly.

  • Date:
    14 April 1992
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Allsop v North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council

    In Allsop v North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council [1992] 90 LGR 462 CA, the Court of Appeal held that payments made to employees by a local authority as compensation for redundancy under a voluntary severance scheme were unlawful as they exceeded the prescribed limits.

  • Date:
    1 April 1992
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Wages Act: Pay in lieu of notice not covered by Wages Act

    In Delaney v Staples t/a De Montfort Recruitment, the House of Lords holds that a payment in lieu of notice, paid by an employer when terminating employment without notice, is not "wages"; and so cannot be the subject of a complaint to an industrial tribunal under the Wages Act 1986.

  • Date:
    22 March 1991
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Contracts of employment: Wrongful dismissal damages not reduced by UD award

    The Court of Appeal holds in O'Laoire v Jackel International Ltd that, unless it can be shown that an employee will recover twice for the same loss, damages for wrongful dismissal should not be reduced by the amount of compensation awarded by a tribunal in respect of unfair dismissal.

  • Date:
    1 February 1991
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Robb v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

    In Robb v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham [1991] IRLR 72 HC, the High Court granted an interlocutory injunction restraining the council from giving effect to the purported summary dismissal of its director of finance on disciplinary grounds - and requiring it to treat him as suspended on full pay - unless and until it had properly complied with the disciplinary procedure incorporated into his contract of employment.

  • Date:
    25 January 1991
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Wages Act: Pay in lieu of notice is not "wages"

    In the first Wages Act case to come before the Court of Appeal - Delaney v Staples t/a De Montfort Recruitment - the Court rules that a payment in lieu of notice is not "wages" and so cannot be the subject of a complaint under the Act.

  • Date:
    5 October 1990
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Redundancy: Unfair redundancy dismissals - time limits and compensation

    An industrial tribunal was entitled to exercise its discretion to extend the time limit for unfair dismissal applications from redundant employees, who mistakenly believed that work would "pick up"; and they would be re-employed, until two weeks after the employer's business closed down.