Johnson v Peabody Trust [1996] UKEAT 221_95_2401 (24 January 1996)

Johnson v Peabody Trust [1996] UKEAT 221_95_2401 (24 January 1996)

The appellant was employed as a roofer, and the respondent's requirements for roofing work had diminished. The flexibility clause did not alter the essential contractual obligation. Therefore, the dismissal was by reason of redundancy under the contract test.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1996] UKEAT 221_95_2401
Parties
Appellant: Mr Johnson; Respondent: Housing Association
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
24 January 1996
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Industrial Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Redundancy, Unfair Dismissal, Employment Contracts
Employment Law Redundancy Unfair Dismissal Employment Contracts

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Johnson

Appellant

Housing Association

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Industrial Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was redundant under Section 81(2)(b) of the 1978 Act

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was employed as a roofer, and the respondent's requirements for roofing work had diminished. The flexibility clause did not alter the essential contractual obligation. Therefore, the dismissal was by reason of redundancy under the contract test.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed