Court: Employment Appeal Tribunal
Heal v The Chancellor, Master and Scholars of the University of Oxford & Ors UKEAT/0070/19/DA
The claimant indicated that he had a disability in his ET1 and requested some adjustments including permission to use a recording device as he said his conditions made it difficult for him to take contemporaneous notes. The employment tribunal indicated that the application should be at a Preliminary Hearing. The claimant appealed on the grounds […]
Heskett v Secretary of State for Justice  UKEAT/0149/18
This appeal considered the changes made by the respondent to the rate at which certain Probation Officers progressed up an incremental salary scale, the effect of which was that progression to the top of the scale would take many years longer than previously.
The Tribunal below had held that the policy change was discriminatory, in that it favoured employees aged over 50. However, it held that this was justified. This was because the case was not a ‘cost alone’ case, which case law has established is not a legitimate aim capable of justifying discrimination. Rather, the Tribunal held that it was a legitimate aim for a company to seek to break even year on year and decide its resource allocation.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal confirmed that the Tribunal had correctly identified the key questions before it and weighed the relevant factors in the balance. As such the appeal was dismissed.
Success in EAT in case concerning the scope of statutory moratorium for legal proceedings against a company in administration
Ince Gordon Dadds LLP and Ors v Mrs J Tunstall And Ors (UKEAT/0141/19/JOJ, UKEAT/0143/19/JOJ, UKEAT/0144/19/JOJ)
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has today decided an issue which has never previously been determined, regarding the scope of the statutory moratorium which applies to legal proceedings against a company in administration.
Insolvency Act 1986, Paragraph 43(6), Schedule B1 imposes a statutory moratorium on legal proceedings against a company in administration. It provides that no legal process may be continued against such a company except with the consent of the administrator, or with the permission of the Companies Court.In this case, the Claimant, had brought claims not only against her former employer, which had gone into administration after the proceedings had been instituted, but also against its employees/agents/partners personally, and the company said to be a relevant transferee of the employer’s business under TUPE. All of the claims were initially stayed.
National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) v Lloyd UKEAT/0281/18/JOJ
The respondent Union had a rule preventing members from standing for election to its NEC where the candidate, if elected, would reach the age of 65 before the end of the three-year term. On appeal by the respondent, the EAT considered the circumstances in which an aim is capable of being legitimate for the purpose […]
Ameyaw v Pricewaterhousecoopers Services Ltd UKEAT/0244/18/LA
An employment tribunal had no power to exclude or remove a judgment from the public register under the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, Sch 1, rule 50. Furthermore, the tribunal had properly exercised its discretion in refusing to make a permanent Anonymity Order. ECHR, art 8 was not engaged – the matters to which the appellant objected had been the subject of discussion at a public trial of a strike out application.