Barrasso v New Look Retailers Ltd [2019] UKEAT 0079_19_2208 (22 August 2019)

Barrasso v New Look Retailers Ltd [2019] UKEAT 0079_19_2208 (22 August 2019)

The Claimant remained an employee shareholder at the time of dismissal because the statutory requirements of section 205A ERA 1996 were met and not terminated by the March 2017 service agreement, which did not supersede or contradict the section 205A agreement; thus, the Claimant was excluded from statutory unfair dismissal rights.

Citation
[2019] UKEAT 0079_19_2208
Parties
Appellant: Claimant; Respondent: Respondent
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
22 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision Striking Out Unfair Dismissal Claim
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Employee Shareholder Status, Unfair Dismissal, Section 205 a Employment Rights Act 1996, Contractual Rights Vs Statutory Rights, Interpretation of Employment Agreements
Employment Law Employee Shareholder Status Unfair Dismissal Section 205 a Employment Rights Act 1996 Contractual Rights Vs Statutory Rights Interpretation of Employment Agreements

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

Parties

Claimant

Appellant

Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision Striking Out Unfair Dismissal Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant remained an employee shareholder at the time of dismissal under section 205A ERA 1996
  2. 2 Whether the March 2017 service agreement superseded the section 205A agreement and reinstated statutory rights
  3. 3 Whether a purposive construction of section 205A ERA requires reaffirmation of employee shareholder status at the time of dismissal

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant remained an employee shareholder at the time of dismissal because the statutory requirements of section 205A ERA 1996 were met and not terminated by the March 2017 service agreement, which did not supersede or contradict the section 205A agreement; thus, the Claimant was excluded from statutory unfair dismissal rights.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.