Associated British Ports v Bridgeman (Working Time Regulations : no sub-topic) [2012] UKEAT 0425_11_0404 (04 April 2012)

Associated British Ports v Bridgeman (Working Time Regulations : no sub-topic) [2012] UKEAT 0425_11_0404 (04 April 2012)

The issue of whether continuity of service must be established separately for each right under the Directive from which derogation is made is not clear and requires a preliminary ruling from the ECJ. The cross-appeal on continuity of service fails as the ET's findings were not perverse and were adequately reasoned.

Citation
[2012] UKEAT 0425_11_0404
Parties
Appellant: Associated British Ports; Respondent: Mr Bridgeman
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
04 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal (eat) Appeal and Cross Appeal / Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal, With Reference to ECJ for Preliminary Ruling
Outcome
Reference to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling on the construction of Article 17(3)(c) of the Directive; cross-appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Working Time Regulations, Rest Breaks, Continuity of Service, Derogations From EU Directives, Compensatory Rest
Employment Law European Union Law Working Time Regulations Rest Breaks Continuity of Service Derogations From EU Directives Compensatory Rest

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Associated British Ports

Appellant

Mr Bridgeman

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal (eat) Appeal and Cross Appeal / Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal, With Reference to ECJ for Preliminary Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Regulation 21 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 requires continuity of service to be established separately for each right from which derogation is claimed
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in its construction of Regulation 21 regarding daily rest under Regulation 10
  3. 3 Whether the activities of the Appellant involved a need for continuity of service under Regulation 21(c)(ii)

Ratio Decidendi

The issue of whether continuity of service must be established separately for each right under the Directive from which derogation is made is not clear and requires a preliminary ruling from the ECJ. The cross-appeal on continuity of service fails as the ET's findings were not perverse and were adequately reasoned.

Court Disposition

Reference to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling on the construction of Article 17(3)(c) of the Directive; cross-appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Parties to produce a draft of the reference to the ECJ.
  • Cross-appeal dismissed.