Ross v Eddie Stobart Ltd (Working Time Regulations : no sub-topic) [2011] UKEAT 0085_10_1605 (14 January 2011)

Ross v Eddie Stobart Ltd (Working Time Regulations : no sub-topic) [2011] UKEAT 0085_10_1605 (14 January 2011)

The Tribunal erred in law by failing to consider and apply the RTR, misapprehending the definition of 'period of availability', and not making adequate findings regarding protected disclosures and health and safety complaints. Section 101A and section 45A do not apply to the RTR. The Tribunal's findings on the principal reason for dismissal were unsafe due to these errors.

Citation
[2011] UKEAT 0085_10_1605
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Mr Peter Ross; Respondent/employer: Eddie Stobart Ltd
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
14 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Working Time Regulations, Victimisation, Whistleblowing, Unfair Dismissal, Health and Safety, Protected Disclosure
Employment Law Labour Law Discrimination Law Working Time Regulations Victimisation Whistleblowing Unfair Dismissal Health and Safety +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Peter Ross

Appellant/claimant

Eddie Stobart Ltd

Respondent/employer

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in its interpretation and application of the Road Transport (Working Time) Regulations 2005 (RTR)
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant made a protected disclosure under the Employment Rights Act 1996
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal failed to make adequate findings under section 100(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (health and safety dismissal)

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal erred in law by failing to consider and apply the RTR, misapprehending the definition of 'period of availability', and not making adequate findings regarding protected disclosures and health and safety complaints. Section 101A and section 45A do not apply to the RTR. The Tribunal's findings on the principal reason for dismissal were unsafe due to these errors.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Case remitted for re-hearing by a differently constituted Tribunal
  • Case management discussion to be held to list issues and ensure readiness for full hearing