Clark v Clark Construction Initiatives Ltd & Anor [2008] UKEAT 0225_07_2902 (29 February 2008)

Clark v Clark Construction Initiatives Ltd & Anor [2008] UKEAT 0225_07_2902 (29 February 2008)

The Tribunal was entitled to find, on the facts, that the Claimant was not an employee during the period he was a controlling shareholder, and thus lacked the necessary continuity of employment for an unfair dismissal claim. However, the Tribunal erred in failing to address all protected disclosures, in not explaining its decision on compensation for lack of written particulars, and in its findings on notice pay. These issues require reconsideration by a fresh Tribunal.

Citation
[2008] UKEAT 0225_07_2902
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Mr Clark; First Respondent/employer: Clark Construction Initiatives Ltd (CCI); Second Respondent: Utility Consultancy Services Ltd
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
29 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; case remitted to a fresh Tribunal for reconsideration of outstanding issues.
Legal Topics
Employee Status, Continuity of Employment, Unfair Dismissal, Protected Disclosures (whistleblowing), Notice Period, Written Particulars of Employment, Costs in Employment Proceedings, Bias and Procedural Fairness
Employment Law Employee Status Continuity of Employment Unfair Dismissal Protected Disclosures (whistleblowing) Notice Period Written Particulars of Employment Costs in Employment Proceedings +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Clark

Appellant/claimant

Clark Construction Initiatives Ltd (CCI)

First Respondent/employer

Utility Consultancy Services Ltd

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a controlling shareholder can also be an employee for the purposes of continuity of employment and unfair dismissal claims
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in its approach to protected disclosures under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the reasonable notice period and in finding that appropriate notice pay had been made

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal was entitled to find, on the facts, that the Claimant was not an employee during the period he was a controlling shareholder, and thus lacked the necessary continuity of employment for an unfair dismissal claim. However, the Tribunal erred in failing to address all protected disclosures, in not explaining its decision on compensation for lack of written particulars, and in its findings on notice pay. These issues require reconsideration by a fresh Tribunal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; case remitted to a fresh Tribunal for reconsideration of outstanding issues.

Orders

  • Case remitted to a fresh Tribunal to determine whether the Claimant was dismissed or suffered detriment for making protected disclosures and to reconsider compensation for failure to provide written particulars and the award of costs.
  • No order for a rehearing of the entire case; only specific issues to be reconsidered.