Bradford v Coral Racing Ltd & Anor [1995] UKEAT 337_93_3101 (31 January 1995)

Bradford v Coral Racing Ltd & Anor [1995] UKEAT 337_93_3101 (31 January 1995)

The Tribunal was entitled to find, on the evidence, that Mrs Bradford resigned and there was no breach of any contractual obligation by the employer; thus, there was no constructive dismissal or redundancy. The transfer of undertaking did not create liability for the transferor, and the benefits and status claimed...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1995] UKEAT 337_93_3101
Parties
Appellant: Mrs Bradford; 1st Respondent: Coral Racing Ltd; 2nd Respondent: Arthur Prince (Turf Accountants) Ltd
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
31 January 1995
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Industrial Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Constructive Dismissal, Redundancy, Transfer of Undertakings, Contractual Terms, Fringe Benefits, Jurisdiction, Costs
Employment Law Constructive Dismissal Redundancy Transfer of Undertakings Contractual Terms Fringe Benefits Jurisdiction Costs

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Bradford

Appellant

Coral Racing Ltd

1st Respondent

Arthur Prince (Turf Accountants) Ltd

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Industrial Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mrs Bradford was constructively dismissed
  2. 2 Whether there was a redundancy situation
  3. 3 Whether the transfer of undertaking affected liability for dismissal or redundancy

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal was entitled to find, on the evidence, that Mrs Bradford resigned and there was no breach of any contractual obligation by the employer; thus, there was no constructive dismissal or redundancy. The transfer of undertaking did not create liability for the transferor, and the benefits and status claimed were not contractual.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs