1/ Thompson v Informatica Software: A case about breach of an anti-corruption policy which carries some very useful snippets about the appropriate method of construction of policies in the context of breach in an unfair dismissal claim.


2/ The 1st ground of appeal concerned how to interpret a policy. The EAT endorsed a submission that it shouldn't be looked at as a contract or statute but the ET should ask itself whether a reasonable employer could have adopted the construction the employer adopted.
3/ The EAT stressed that it's also important for ETs to recognise that policies are being operated by lay people and not by lawyers.
4/ The judgment also contains a useful passage on the meaning of 'wilful disregard', distinguishing it from deliberate breach, & extending it to situations where someone who should know they ought to take advice about the possibility of breach chooses not to do so.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Jason Braier

Jason Braier Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @JasonBraier

8 Oct
In Rooney v Leicester CC the EAT found in effect the ET had made a complete mess of a menopause disability case, as well as cavalierly striking out a sex discrimination case & failing to properly engage with time issues on a PiD detriment claim. bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT…
2/ The EAT found in particular the ET had concentrated on what C could do as against what she couldn't, contrary to Ahmed v Metroline, found effects weren't longterm contrary to uncontroverted evidence & misrepresented C's own evidence on the extent of impairment. ImageImage
3/ 1 strange thing about this case was that C's 1st ET1, drafted by solicitors, conceded she wasn't disabled, but the following day C submitted a 2nd ET1 as an LiP claiming to be disabled & that the solicitors hadn't been authorised by her to concede non-disability.
Read 7 tweets
6 Oct
1/ Carillion Services v Benson (& around 1000 others): the 'special circumstances' exception to the consultation requirements of s.188 TULRCA requires something uncommon/out of the ordinary. Entering compulsory liquidation per se wasn't special
2/ You'll doubtless be familiar with Carillion, the FTSE 100 company which provided a host of facilities management & construction services to the government prior to its liquidation on 15.01.18 & the consequent huge redundancies which followed.
3/ Carillion failed to consult, as required by s.188 TULRCA, but contended s.188(7) came to the rescue. Its case was it only became apparent the company wouldn't survive in the days before entering liquidation. No company of this size had entered liquidation before.
Read 15 tweets
3 Oct
1/ Martin v LB Southwark: EAT warns of the dangers of an ET failing to take a structured approach to assessing whether a disclosure is a qualifying disclosure. The ET reviewed 5 disclosures, & was fundamentally flawed in reviewing each one.


2/ M was a teacher. He was concerned that he and other teachers worked over & above the 'statutory directed time'. He set out those concerns on a number of occasions. The ET found none of them to be qualifying disclosures, but the EAT remitted the question to a new panel.
3/ The 1st disclosure was in an email to the Head, raising concern that teachers' working hours exceeded 'statutory guidance'. The ET found that as it merely raised a 'potential concern' it was an enquiry rather than disclosure of information. ImageImage
Read 15 tweets
27 Sep
1/ Pitcher v Oxford Uni; Oxford Uni v Ewart: When 2 different ETs reach opposite conclusions about the proportionality of Oxford's retirement age policy, what is the EAT to do? Answer: find neither of them wrong! assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6151968c…

2/ Alas with another Jewish festival approaching, I don't have time to give this 86 page judgment of Eady J my full attention, but it's certainly worth a read & at least the briefest of threads.
3/ The cases concern 2 associate profs & Oxford Uni's Employer Justified Retirement Age policy. Prof Pitcher was compulsorily retired aged 67, having failed to get an extension of his employment under the policy. Prof Ewart got 1 extension but not a 2nd, thus was retired also.
Read 15 tweets
23 Sep
1/ PG2C v Davis: A welcome return of the ET President to the EAT and a notable application of the recent weakening of the rule in Browne v Dunn on the need to allow witnesses to explain themselves before the ET finds dishonesty against them.


2/ D was employed as a business development director of a project & programme management company. His role involved extensive entertainment of clients & expectations of alcohol consumption. D was diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes prior to his dismissal.
3/ D brought a number of claims, but the ET found 2 in his favour (finding it unnecessary to rule on some), namely that his dismissal & R's directors' refusal to acknowledge his ill health were both direct disability discrimination (a s.15 claim was 1 of those not ruled on).
Read 14 tweets
22 Sep
1/ Thomas v FW Farnsworth: A useful reminder of the principles of Park Cakes v Shumba as to when terms of enhanced redundancy payment are implied into employment contracts by custom & practice.


2/ 27 workers at Pizza Factory were made redundant & paid statutory redundancy pay plus 10%. They claimed this was in breach of a contractual entitlement to enhanced redundancy pay of double the number of statutory weeks & no cap on a week's salary.
3/ Before the ET, the employees asserted their entitlement on 2 alternative bases: (i) a '1999 redundancy agreement' was incorporated & applied to all future redundancies; (ii) a term on enhanced redundancy pay was implied by custom & practice.
Read 13 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!