Roddis v Sheffield Hallam University [2018] UKEAT 0299_17_2603 (26 March 2018)

Roddis v Sheffield Hallam University [2018] UKEAT 0299_17_2603 (26 March 2018)

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by concluding that the claimant and his comparator were not employed under the same type of contract. Both were employees under contracts of employment, falling within category (a) of Regulation 2(3). Differences in hours or terms do not constitute a different contract type. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] UKEAT 0299_17_2603
Parties
Appellant: Claimant (Appellant); Respondent: Respondent
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
26 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Preliminary Hearing Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Part Time Workers, Zero Hours Contracts, Comparators, Less Favourable Treatment
Employment Law Part Time Workers Zero Hours Contracts Comparators Less Favourable Treatment

Source-derived case record

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claimant (Appellant)

Appellant

Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Preliminary Hearing Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in interpreting Regulation 2(4)(a)(i) of the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 regarding contract comparability
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal provided adequate reasons for its conclusion

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by concluding that the claimant and his comparator were not employed under the same type of contract. Both were employees under contracts of employment, falling within category (a) of Regulation 2(3). Differences in hours or terms do not constitute a different contract type. The Tribunal misapplied Wippel and failed to follow Matthews, resulting in a misdirection of law.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Paragraph 4 of the Employment Tribunal's judgment substituted with a finding that the claimant and comparator were employed under the same type of contract for Regulation 2 purposes.
  • Paragraph 5 of the Employment Tribunal's judgment revoked.