Vickers v London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority [2010] EWHC 1855 (QB) (21 July 2010)

Vickers v London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority [2010] EWHC 1855 (QB) (21 July 2010)

The phrase 'unable to drive for genuine reasons' in paragraph 7 of section 3 of the Grey Book refers to incapacity beyond the employee's control, not mere lack of a driving licence or failure to pass a driving test. The claimant's inability to drive was not for reasons beyond his control; therefore, he was not entitled to the declaration or competency pay.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 1855 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Ben Vickers; Defendant: London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Employment Contract Claim / Liability Determination and Declaration
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Competency Based Pay, Contractual Interpretation, Firefighter Employment Conditions
Employment Law Contract Law Competency Based Pay Contractual Interpretation Firefighter Employment Conditions

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ben Vickers

Claimant

London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Employment Contract Claim / Liability Determination and Declaration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to hold a valid driving licence constitutes a 'genuine reason' for inability to drive under paragraph 7 of section 3 of the Grey Book
  2. 2 Entitlement to competency pay based on inability to drive for genuine reasons

Ratio Decidendi

The phrase 'unable to drive for genuine reasons' in paragraph 7 of section 3 of the Grey Book refers to incapacity beyond the employee's control, not mere lack of a driving licence or failure to pass a driving test. The claimant's inability to drive was not for reasons beyond his control; therefore, he was not entitled to the declaration or competency pay.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Declaration refused
  • Action for breach of contract dismissed