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

Grantham v Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council

The EAT dismissed Mr Grantham’s appeal, holding that any failure to consider medical evidence about autism was not material to the strike out and reconsideration decisions.

• Strike out
• Unless order
• Reconsideration
• Reasonable adjustments
• Disability discrimination
• Unfair dismissal

Read case analysis

B Kristensen v Portman Healthcare Limited

The EAT allowed an appeal in part in a whistleblowing and unfair dismissal case, correcting errors on principal reason, suspension, and limitation issues.

• Unfair dismissal
• Whistleblowing
• Protected disclosure detriment
• Wrongful dismissal
• Limitation under section 48 era
• Employment tribunal reasons and meek compliance

Read case analysis

OE Olarewaju v Bupa Care Services Limited

The Employment Tribunal's reasoning, though brief, was sufficient to inform the claimant why his application for interim relief failed; the evidence did not support a likely finding that dismissal was due to protected disclosures rather than misconduct.

Source excerpt

• Whistleblowing
• Protected disclosures
• Interim relief
• Unfair dismissal

Read case analysis

E Komeng v National Highways Limited

The EAT held that a fixed-term employee's exclusion from training could amount to less favourable treatment without a separate detriment finding, but the appeal failed on justification and time.

• Fixed-term employment
• Less favourable treatment
• Objective justification
• Unfair dismissal
• Discrimination
• Fixed-term-employment

Read case analysis

Clifton Diocese v Janet Parker

The EAT held that the tribunal erred in its burden-of-proof analysis on religion or belief discrimination and harassment, but upheld unfair and wrongful dismissal findings.

• Unfair dismissal
• Wrongful dismissal
• Religion or belief discrimination
• Burden of proof
• Harassment
• Employment-law

Read case analysis

Yovka Kisheva v Secure Frontline Services Limited

It was perverse for the Employment Tribunal to conclude that the claimant's conduct amounted to gross misconduct when such conduct was not specified as such in the code of conduct or contract, and the evidence did not support this finding. The dismissal was unfair, and the reduction of awards by 100% was not justified or adequately reasoned.

Source excerpt

• Unfair dismissal
• Gross misconduct
• Procedural fairness
• Remedy
• Wrongful dismissal

Read case analysis

Donald Gormley v Phoenix Business Solutions (UK) Limited

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by dismissing the unfair dismissal claim despite clear findings of procedural unfairness; the only available conclusion was that the appellant was unfairly dismissed. However, the ET made sufficient factual findings to support its limited compensatory award, and its decision on wrongful dismissal was not in error of law as the breach was fundamental.

Source excerpt

• Redundancy
• Unfair dismissal
• Wrongful dismissal
• Contract of employment
• Remedies for unfair dismissal

Read case analysis

Neil Duke v B & M Retail Ltd

The Employment Tribunal erred in law and reasoning regarding disadvantage, justification, reasonable adjustments, unfair dismissal, and failed to address wrongful dismissal; the appeal is upheld and the case remitted to a differently constituted tribunal.

Source excerpt

• Disability discrimination
• Reasonable adjustments
• Unfair dismissal
• Wrongful dismissal
• Covid-19 employment measures

Read case analysis

C v Grampian Health Board & Ors

The Employment Tribunal did not err in law by declining to attribute the third respondent's actions or mindset to the first respondent, as the Jhuti exception did not apply in the absence of manipulation or a hidden reason, and the entities involved were separate. The dismissal was fair as found by the Tribunal.

Source excerpt

• Unfair dismissal
• Discrimination
• Attribution of knowledge
• Reason for dismissal
• Equality act 2010
• Employment rights act 1996

Read case analysis