Kennaugh v Jones (t/a Cheshire Tree Surgeons) [2013] EWCA Civ 1 (16 January 2013)

Kennaugh v Jones (t/a Cheshire Tree Surgeons) [2013] EWCA Civ 1 (16 January 2013)

The applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law in the tribunal's or EAT's reasoning. The tribunal's findings of fact were not perverse, and the alleged breaches did not amount to constructive dismissal. No evidence of judicial bias was provided. The application for permission to appeal was refused as...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] EWCA Civ 1
Parties
Appellant: Keith Kennaugh; Respondent: David Lloyd Jones (t/a Cheshire Tree Surgeons)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal to Court of Appeal
Outcome
permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Constructive Dismissal, Unfair Dismissal, Appeals Procedure, Judicial Bias, Breach of Contract
Employment Law Constructive Dismissal Unfair Dismissal Appeals Procedure Judicial Bias Breach of Contract

Source-derived case record

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

Keith Kennaugh

Appellant

David Lloyd Jones (t/a Cheshire Tree Surgeons)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law in dismissing the claim for unfair constructive dismissal
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Appeal Tribunal erred in refusing permission to appeal
  3. 3 Whether alleged breaches of contract amounted to constructive dismissal

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law in the tribunal's or EAT's reasoning. The tribunal's findings of fact were not perverse, and the alleged breaches did not amount to constructive dismissal. No evidence of judicial bias was provided. The application for permission to appeal was refused as having no real prospect of success.

Court Disposition

permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • application to amend appellant's notice refused
  • application to extend time for appeal refused