Department for Work and Pensions v Webley

Department for Work and Pensions v Webley

The non-renewal or termination of a fixed-term contract by effluxion of time, where the only complaint is the refusal to renew or extend, does not amount to less favourable treatment under regulation 3(1)(b). The regulations do not require conversion to permanent contracts and do not prohibit the use of fixed-term contracts per se.

Parties
Appellant: Department for Work and Pensions; Respondent: Atasha Webley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Fixed Term Contracts, Less Favourable Treatment, Employment Discrimination, Termination of Employment
Employment Law Fixed Term Contracts Less Favourable Treatment Employment Discrimination Termination of Employment

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Department for Work and Pensions

Appellant

Atasha Webley

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the non-renewal of a fixed-term contract is capable of involving less favourable treatment within regulation 3(1)(a) or 3(1)(b) of the Fixed-Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002

Ratio Decidendi

The non-renewal or termination of a fixed-term contract by effluxion of time, where the only complaint is the refusal to renew or extend, does not amount to less favourable treatment under regulation 3(1)(b). The regulations do not require conversion to permanent contracts and do not prohibit the use of fixed-term contracts per se.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of the Employment Appeal Tribunal set aside
  • Originating application by the respondent dismissed