Home Office v Evans & Anor

Home Office v Evans & Anor

The Home Office was legally entitled to invoke the contractual mobility clause to transfer the claimants upon closure of WIT, as it was not proposing to dismiss them. The redundancy procedures in the Redundancy HON were not engaged because no dismissals were proposed. The claimants were not constructively dismissed, and their claims for unfair dismissal fail.

Parties
Appellant: The Home Office; Respondent: Mr Peter Evans; Respondent: Mr Ian Laidlaw
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; claims for unfair dismissal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Constructive Dismissal, Mobility Clauses, Redundancy Procedures, Contractual Obligations
Employment Law Constructive Dismissal Mobility Clauses Redundancy Procedures Contractual Obligations

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Home Office

Appellant

Mr Peter Evans

Respondent

Mr Ian Laidlaw

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Home Office was legally entitled to invoke the contractual mobility obligation instead of redundancy procedures upon closure of Waterloo International Terminal
  2. 2 Whether the failure to follow redundancy procedures constituted a fundamental breach of contract leading to constructive dismissal

Ratio Decidendi

The Home Office was legally entitled to invoke the contractual mobility clause to transfer the claimants upon closure of WIT, as it was not proposing to dismiss them. The redundancy procedures in the Redundancy HON were not engaged because no dismissals were proposed. The claimants were not constructively dismissed, and their claims for unfair dismissal fail.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; claims for unfair dismissal dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The claimants' claims for unfair dismissal are dismissed.