England and Wales Case Law

The Laurels Family Assessment Limited v M Y Kay

The majority of the employment tribunal properly found, on the evidence, that the claimant made protected disclosures to her employer and the independent visitor, and that the principal reason for her dismissal was those disclosures. The tribunal's findings were not perverse, nor was its reasoning inadequate. The employer's appeal was dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Unfair dismissal
• Protected disclosures
• Whistleblowing
• Automatic unfair dismissal
• Detrimental treatment
• Employment rights

Read case analysis

Muchererah v Rushcliffe Independent Hospitals (Kegworth) Ltd

The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed an appeal against findings on protected disclosures, health and safety dismissal, statutory rights, and wages.

• Protected disclosures
• Automatic unfair dismissal
• Health and safety dismissal
• Assertion of statutory right
• Unlawful deduction from wages
• Perversity appeal

Read case analysis

David Fong v David Montgomery & Ors

The tribunal erred in law by categorising the claimant's amendment as a new complaint rather than a re-labelling of facts already pleaded. No reasonable tribunal, properly directing itself, could have concluded that the claimant was raising an entirely new complaint. This error tainted the balancing exercise required by Selkent and led to consideration of irrelevant factors such as time limits. The amendment should have been considered as a re-labelling, and the refusal was perverse.

Source excerpt

• Amendment of pleadings
• Automatic unfair dismissal
• Protected disclosure (whistleblowing)
• Assertion of statutory right
• Case management discretion

Read case analysis

Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council v Christine Oliver

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by determining a claim of automatic unfair dismissal under regulation 10 of the 1999 Regulations that was not properly before it, failed to treat the issue as an application to amend, and did not address the jurisdictional question of time limits. The Tribunal also failed to make necessary findings of fact required under regulation 10.

Source excerpt

• Unfair dismissal
• Automatic unfair dismissal
• Maternity rights
• Amendment of pleadings
• Jurisdiction
• Time limits

Read case analysis

Bazgha Anwar v Boots Management Services Ltd

The Employment Judge erred in law by dismissing the Appellant’s claim of automatic unfair dismissal at a private Preliminary Hearing without prior warning, based on an incorrect view that claims of detriment and automatic unfair dismissal were legally inconsistent, and by treating the Appellant as having withdrawn her claim when she was unfairly pressured to choose between claims. This amounted to procedural unfairness and breach of Employment Tribunal Rules.

Source excerpt

• Automatic unfair dismissal
• Constructive unfair dismissal
• Protected disclosure
• Case management
• Strike-out procedure

Read case analysis

Wendy Drake v Churchill Contract Services Ltd

The tribunal erred by failing to proactively clarify and consider whether the claimant was advancing a claim of automatically unfair dismissal under regulation 7 TUPE, as her pleadings and communications raised this possibility and she was a litigant in person. The matter is remitted for further consideration of this issue.

Source excerpt

• Unfair dismissal
• Transfer of undertakings (protection of employment) regulations (tupe)
• Automatic unfair dismissal
• Case management
• Litigant in person

Read case analysis

N Hall v Paragon Finance PLC

Appeal over interim relief in a whistleblowing unfair dismissal claim dismissed; the cross-appeal succeeded, but causation findings were upheld.

• Whistleblowing
• Protected disclosure
• Automatic unfair dismissal
• Interim relief
• Causation
• Qualifying disclosure

Read case analysis

Hilton Foods Solutions Ltd v Andrew Wright

There is no absolute requirement that an employee must have given formal written notice to take parental leave under paragraphs 1(b) and 3 of Schedule 2 to the Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999 in order to be protected from dismissal for having 'sought' to take parental leave. Whether an employee has 'sought' to take parental leave is a factual determination for the Employment Tribunal, considering all relevant evidence.

Source excerpt

• Parental leave
• Automatic unfair dismissal
• Maternity and parental leave regulations
• Employment rights act

Read case analysis

K Ciochon v Mark Kempe t/a Neville Arms & Neville Arms Inn

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by failing to properly apply the burden of proof provisions in discrimination claims, specifically by taking into account the respondent's explanation at the first stage and not adequately explaining why the facts found did not shift the burden of proof. The matter is remitted for redetermination by a different Employment Tribunal.

Source excerpt

• Pregnancy discrimination
• Automatic unfair dismissal
• Burden of proof
• Redundancy process

Read case analysis

Francesco Accattatis v Fortuna Group (London) Limited

The Tribunal erred in law by failing to consider and apply section 100(2) ERA 1996 when determining whether the claimant’s requests for furlough or home working were appropriate steps, and by failing to identify whether those requests were the principal reason for dismissal. The matter must be remitted for the Tribunal to decide these issues afresh.

Source excerpt

• Unfair dismissal
• Health and safety at work
• Automatic unfair dismissal
• Covid-19 employment rights

Read case analysis