Griffiths v Great Places Housing Group Ltd (Practice and Procedure : New evidence on appeal) [2017] UKEAT 0097_16_3003 (30 March 2017)

Griffiths v Great Places Housing Group Ltd (Practice and Procedure : New evidence on appeal) [2017] UKEAT 0097_16_3003 (30 March 2017)

The spreadsheet evidence does not constitute a contract or statement of terms and conditions, cannot override the flexibility clause in the original contract, and would not have had an important influence on the Tribunal's findings. The only operative contract was the Connaught contract, and there was no evidence of a variation extinguishing the flexibility requirement.

Citation
[2017] UKEAT 0097_16_3003
Parties
Appellant: Claimant; Respondent: Respondent
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
30 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Constructive Unfair Dismissal, TUPE Transfers, Fresh Evidence on Appeal, Contract Variation
Employment Law Constructive Unfair Dismissal TUPE Transfers Fresh Evidence on Appeal Contract Variation

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claimant

Appellant

Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new evidence (a spreadsheet from previous employer) would have had an important influence on the result of the constructive unfair dismissal case under the Ladd v Marshall test
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant's contractual duties were varied by the second employer so as to restrict him to void property work

Ratio Decidendi

The spreadsheet evidence does not constitute a contract or statement of terms and conditions, cannot override the flexibility clause in the original contract, and would not have had an important influence on the Tribunal's findings. The only operative contract was the Connaught contract, and there was no evidence of a variation extinguishing the flexibility requirement.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed