Jones v Friction Dynamics Ltd & Ors [2007] UKEAT 0428_06_2803 (28 March 2007)

Jones v Friction Dynamics Ltd & Ors [2007] UKEAT 0428_06_2803 (28 March 2007)

Mr Jones' contract was not frustrated as there was no incapacitating event; dismissal by the administrator was the terminating event. Employment Tribunal failed to provide Meek-compliant reasons for its findings regarding TUPE dismissals; appeals allowed and matter remitted for rehearing.

Citation
[2007] UKEAT 0428_06_2803
Parties
Appellant: Mr R A Jones; First Respondent: Friction Dynamics Ltd (In Administration); Third Respondent: Ferotec Realty Ltd; Appellant: Amicus; Appellant: Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Second Respondent: Dynamex Friction Ltd; Fourth Respondent: TBA Textiles Ltd
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
28 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal Judgment and Remittal
Outcome
Appeals allowed; Employment Tribunal decisions set aside and remitted for rehearing before a fresh tribunal.
Legal Topics
Frustration of Contract, Unfair Dismissal, Redundancy Payment, TUPE Regulations, Duty to Give Reasons, Economic Dismissal, Transfer Related Dismissal
Employment Law Contract Law Frustration of Contract Unfair Dismissal Redundancy Payment TUPE Regulations Duty to Give Reasons Economic Dismissal +1 more

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 6 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr R A Jones

Appellant

Friction Dynamics Ltd (In Administration)

First Respondent

Ferotec Realty Ltd

Third Respondent

Amicus

Appellant

Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

Appellant

Dynamex Friction Ltd

Second Respondent

TBA Textiles Ltd

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal Judgment and Remittal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Jones' contract was terminated by frustration or dismissal
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law regarding frustration
  3. 3 Adequacy of Employment Tribunal reasons

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Jones' contract was not frustrated as there was no incapacitating event; dismissal by the administrator was the terminating event. Employment Tribunal failed to provide Meek-compliant reasons for its findings regarding TUPE dismissals; appeals allowed and matter remitted for rehearing.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; Employment Tribunal decisions set aside and remitted for rehearing before a fresh tribunal.

Orders

  • Declaration that Mr Jones was dismissed by the First Respondent, not frustrated.
  • Matter to be reheard before a new Employment Tribunal appointed by the Regional Chairman.