Anite Systems Ltd v Williams-Key [2001] UKEAT 898_98_0202 (2 February 2001)

Anite Systems Ltd v Williams-Key [2001] UKEAT 898_98_0202 (2 February 2001)

The employer's contractual obligation is to maintain PHI insurance providing minimum benefits as per the scheme in force at contract inception, and to pass on those benefits; there is no obligation to pay employee's pension contributions unless included in the PHI scheme. The Employment Tribunal lacks jurisdiction as the disputed sums are not wages under section 27.

Citation
[2001] UKEAT 898_98_0202
Parties
Applicant: Mr Williams-Key; Respondent: Anite Systems Ltd
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
02 February 2001
Procedural Posture
Employment Tribunal Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Both appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Permanent Health Insurance, Pension Contributions, Employment Contract Construction, Jurisdiction Under Employment Rights Act
Employment Law Contract Law Permanent Health Insurance Pension Contributions Employment Contract Construction Jurisdiction Under Employment Rights Act

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

Parties

Mr Williams-Key

Applicant

Anite Systems Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Tribunal Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether employer is contractually obliged to pay employee's pension contributions during PHI benefit period
  2. 2 Proper construction of employment contract and Employees' Handbook
  3. 3 Jurisdiction of Employment Tribunal under section 27 Employment Rights Act

Ratio Decidendi

The employer's contractual obligation is to maintain PHI insurance providing minimum benefits as per the scheme in force at contract inception, and to pass on those benefits; there is no obligation to pay employee's pension contributions unless included in the PHI scheme. The Employment Tribunal lacks jurisdiction as the disputed sums are not wages under section 27.

Court Disposition

Both appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Applicant's appeal dismissed
  • Respondent's appeal against strike-out dismissed