Kennaugh v Jones (t/a Cheshire Tree Surgeons)

Kennaugh v Jones (t/a Cheshire Tree Surgeons)

The applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law in the Employment Tribunal's or EAT's decisions. The alleged breaches by the respondent were not found to be fundamental or calculated to destroy the employment relationship. The applicant's complaints were primarily about findings of fact, which are not appealable unless perverse, and no perversity was shown. Procedural complaints about the handling of notices of appeal and allegations of bias were unsupported and not properly raised before the appropriate tribunal or at the correct stage.

Parties
Applicant: 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 the Court of Appeal
Outcome
permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Constructive Dismissal, Unfair Dismissal, Breach of Contract, Employment Tribunal Procedure, Appeals, Judicial Bias Allegations
Employment Law Constructive Dismissal Unfair Dismissal Breach of Contract Employment Tribunal Procedure Appeals Judicial Bias Allegations

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Keith Kennaugh

Applicant

David Lloyd Jones (t/a Cheshire Tree Surgeons)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal to the 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 dismissing the appeal under rule 3(10)
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was denied a fair opportunity to advance all grounds of appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law in the Employment Tribunal's or EAT's decisions. The alleged breaches by the respondent were not found to be fundamental or calculated to destroy the employment relationship. The applicant's complaints were primarily about findings of fact, which are not appealable unless perverse, and no perversity was shown. Procedural complaints about the handling of notices of appeal and allegations of bias were unsupported and not properly raised before the appropriate tribunal or at the correct stage.

Court Disposition

permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application to amend the appellant’s notice refused
  • Application for extension of time to appeal refused