Aziz v The Fremantle Trust

Aziz v The Fremantle Trust

The appeal was dismissed because the Claimant did not raise the Braganza argument before the Employment Tribunal, and thus there was no error of law in the Tribunal's failure to address it. The Tribunal's findings that the relocation instruction was lawful under the mobility clause, and that the dismissal was for gross misconduct and not for victimisation, were upheld.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Mrs MB Aziz; Respondent/employer: The Fremantle Trust (A Charity Limited by Guarantee)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Victimisation, Wrongful Dismissal, Contractual Interpretation, Mobility Clause
Employment Law Unfair Dismissal Victimisation Wrongful Dismissal Contractual Interpretation Mobility Clause

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs MB Aziz

Appellant/claimant

The Fremantle Trust (A Charity Limited by Guarantee)

Respondent/employer

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law by failing to consider and apply the Braganza principles regarding contractual discretion under a contract of employment
  2. 2 Whether the instruction to relocate the Claimant was unlawful under the mobility clause or relocation policy
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant was unfairly or wrongfully dismissed or victimised

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the Claimant did not raise the Braganza argument before the Employment Tribunal, and thus there was no error of law in the Tribunal's failure to address it. The Tribunal's findings that the relocation instruction was lawful under the mobility clause, and that the dismissal was for gross misconduct and not for victimisation, were upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed