Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council v Hancock [2001] EWCA Civ 1980 (29 November 2001)

Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council v Hancock [2001] EWCA Civ 1980 (29 November 2001)

The regulations do not permit both redundancy and ill-health retirement compensation; previous judgments substantively disposed of the counterclaim; summary judgment and setting aside default judgment were appropriate; no procedural unfairness or breach of human rights occurred.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 1980
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council; Defendant/appellant: Dean William Hancock
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (second Appeal)
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Redundancy Payments, Ill Health Retirement, Summary Judgment, Counterclaim, Default Judgment, Human Rights Act, Article 6 ECHR, Article 1 First Protocol ECHR, Prevention of Corruption Acts
Employment Law Civil Procedure Local Government Law Redundancy Payments Ill Health Retirement Summary Judgment Counterclaim Default Judgment +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council

Claimant/respondent

Dean William Hancock

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (second Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Hancock was entitled to both redundancy and ill-health retirement payments
  2. 2 Whether the counterclaim was properly disposed of by previous judgments
  3. 3 Whether procedural fairness was denied, including under Article 6 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The regulations do not permit both redundancy and ill-health retirement compensation; previous judgments substantively disposed of the counterclaim; summary judgment and setting aside default judgment were appropriate; no procedural unfairness or breach of human rights occurred.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal refused
  • No order for costs