Richardson v. H Mullins (Earlby) Ltd [2000] UKEAT 996_99_0310 (3 October 2000)

Richardson v. H Mullins (Earlby) Ltd [2000] UKEAT 996_99_0310 (3 October 2000)

The Tribunal was entitled to find that the contract was terminable on notice, not a fixed-term apprenticeship, based on the applicant's conduct and the parties' intentions. The 50% Polkey deduction was permissible given the evidence of other employees' skills and disciplinary records. The Tribunal gave sufficient reasons for limiting future loss to 4 weeks based on the applicant's job prospects.

Citation
[2000] UKEAT 996_99_0310
Parties
Appellant: Thomas Richardson; Respondent: Mr John O'Rourke / Precision Engineering Business
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
03 October 2000
Procedural Posture
Employment Tribunal Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Apprenticeship Contracts, Redundancy, Unfair Dismissal, Compensation Calculation, Polkey Deduction, Adequacy of Reasons
Employment Law Apprenticeship Contracts Redundancy Unfair Dismissal Compensation Calculation Polkey Deduction Adequacy of Reasons

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

Parties

Thomas Richardson

Appellant

Mr John O'Rourke / Precision Engineering Business

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Tribunal Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was employed under a fixed-term contract of apprenticeship not terminable on notice
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal erred in applying a 50% Polkey deduction for unfair dismissal
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal gave adequate reasons for limiting future loss to 4 weeks

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal was entitled to find that the contract was terminable on notice, not a fixed-term apprenticeship, based on the applicant's conduct and the parties' intentions. The 50% Polkey deduction was permissible given the evidence of other employees' skills and disciplinary records. The Tribunal gave sufficient reasons for limiting future loss to 4 weeks based on the applicant's job prospects.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No error of law found in Tribunal's decision
  • Tribunal's award and findings upheld