In Baldwin v (1) Cleves School, (2) Hodges, (3) Miller [2024] EAT 66 the employment tribunal had found the respondent employer liable for acts carried out by the two individual respondents. However, it dismissed separate claims against the individual respondents brought under section 110 of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010), on the basis that… >>
In William v Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust [2024] EAT 58 the EAT held that its earlier decision in Malik v Centros Securities (UKEAT/0100/17/RN) (that in a public interest detriment claim under section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 it is not permissible to import the knowledge and motivation of another to the decision… >>
In Powell v University of Portsmouth [2024] EAT 56 the respondent did not allow the claimant, a Principal Lecturer, to return to work while he could not undertake face-to-face classroom teaching due to suffering unpredictable blackouts. The employment tribunal dismissed the claims of disability discrimination and constructive dismissal and the EAT upheld those findings, in… >>
In Rajput v Sky Retail Stores Ltd [2024] EAT 46 the employment tribunal held that unilateral changes to the claimants’ contracts (changing their role from Store Manager to Sales Advisor but increasing their pay) had resulted in Hogg v Dover College [1990] ICR 39 dismissals. This meant that the claimants could not pursue a wages claim in… >>
HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has announced that all Employment Tribunal online services (affecting submission of ET1s, ET3s and digital applications) will be subject to a planned upgrade between 20.30 on Thursday 18th April – 08.00 on Friday 19th April. Pro Employment LawFormed in 2017, following significant legislative changes designed to increase competition within… >>
In Nicol v World Travel and Tourism Council [2024] EAT 42 the EAT rejected the claimant’s contention that, as long as a protected disclosure had been made to person A, and person B (the decision-maker) knew that a disclosure had been made, person B did not need to know the detail of what had been… >>
Under SI 2024/366: Amendments are made to Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, SI 2013/1237, which sets out the rules that govern the procedure in the Employment Tribunals, including: to allow the tribunal to direct that the 28-day time limit for the filing of a response restarts from… >>
In Wicked Vision v Rice [2024] EAT 29 the EAT held that: a claimant cannot claim that their employer (a company) is vicariously liable under section 47B(1B) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) for the act of a co-worker (in this case the company’s owner) for the ‘detriment of dismissal’; such a claim… >>
In Accattatis v Fortuna Group (London) [2024] EAT 25 an employment tribunal judge failed to fully examine a salesman’s requests for hybrid work during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, the EAT has ruled after finding this might have saved his automatic unfair dismissal claim. Pro Employment LawFormed in 2017, following significant legislative changes designed to increase… >>