1/ Altes v Essex Uni: An appeal on contractual construction of the termination clauses of A's contract of employment, with the EAT dismissing the appeal & holding the uni entitled to terminate as it did. bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT… #ukemplaw
2/ A was employed as a lecturer in French. She was given notice of termination during her probation period due to unlikelihood she'd achieve satisfactory progress against her probation targets before probation ended. A claimed she could only be dismissed for good cause.
3/ The EAT set out agreed principals of contractual construction from West Bromwich, Arnold v Britton & Wood v Capita related to relevant facts imputed to the reasonable man construing the term, the limits of commercial common sense as a construction tool, & natural meaning.
4/ A's position was that the contract didn't allow for curtailment of the probationary period per se, but only termination at its end for failure to meet expectations or termination beforehand for good cause for matters relating to discipline or capability.
5/ In construing the various contractual provisions & Ordinances in this case, the EAT adopted an iterative approach to construction through which the conclusion was reached that the Uni wasn't limited to dismissals for good cause within the probationary period.
6/ HHJ Tayler was reassured that the constructive conclusion he reached was also one that he considered consistent with the view of the reasonable man armed with the relevant factual background information & also consistent with commercial common sense.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ Ameyaw v PWC has returned to the EAT yet again (I think it's the 5th time), returning empty-handed once again. This time it was 2 appeals combined (so perhaps the 5th & 6th times) & primarily concerned a reconsideration, adjournment & r.50. bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT… #ukemplaw
2/ As you may know, A was a senior manager at PWC. She brought a number of discrim/victimisation/harassment claims. At a PH in early 2017, A and her mother behaved appallingly, leading to a subsequent application to strike out A's 1st 3 claims under both ET r.37(1)(b)&(e).
3/ That application was dismissed, the EJ finding a fair trial was still possible. The EJ hearing the strike out application took the events at the previous PH from the previous EJ's judgment, refusing to allow A to adduce witness evidence in dispute.
1/ Werner v Southampton Uni: a sigh of relief for the uni as the EAT finds no bias in the ET's grant of an extension of time to enter the ET3, which they'd failed to enter through a litany of errors, & which had led to a £3.5m compensatory award! assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6177e1dd… #ukemplaw
2/ W was a Professor of International Banking from 2005 to resignation in 2018. He brought unfair dismissal, race & religion/belief discrim, holiday pay, arrears & other payments claims to the ET, complaining of career obstruction.
3/ In his ET1, W sought compensation of £4,375,000 - around 64 times his gross annual salary! His claim centred on his assertion his treatment was because he was a German Christian who believed banking concentration is a cancer to society.
1/ Augustine v Data Cars: When calculating an employed taxi driver's total earnings in order to determine whether there was a shortfall against the NMW, the ET erred in not reducing the amount received by expenditure on vehicle rental & uniform costs. #ukemplaw
2/ The ET wrongly excluded the car rental figure on the basis A could've used his own car. That was irrelevant to the legal test - the right one was whether the expenditure was in connection with the employment & not reimbursed. Necessity wasn't part of the test.
3/ Precisely the same test applied to the cost of uniform. A was required to wear a uniform in connection with his employment, which was why he rented it. The ET should have deducted that cost.
National ET Group minutes for September are out, & lots of stuff of interest for #ukemplaw geeks (and others)!
1st up, a list of the newest cohort of EJs. I had the pleasure of appearing before my 1st of them a couple of weeks ago - EJ Dyal was unsurprisingly excellent.
2/ Given the disappointing number of new salaried EJs recruited, efforts are having to be made elsewhere, with a massive fee-paid intake (plus new competition ongoing now) & temporary assignment of 1st tier judges with #ukemplaw experience (some like @reedmj a heck of a lot!)
3/ Next up, the new addition of legal officers, starting in November & hopefully easing & improving some of our regular frustrations in trying to get swift & carefully considered rulings on case progression issues.
1/Renewi v Pamment: a truly landmark moment for the EAT in that it's @MichaelFordQC's 1st judgment (I think I'm right in saying that). I look forward to @thebigbogg's analysis of this seminal unfair dismissal substitution/Polkey/contrib appeal.
2/ P was a recycling team leader. Part of the recycling team's role was to deliver recycling bags by van & to empty large bin banks using a 7.5t lorry. P led the team doing both types of work though had no 7.5t lorry licence himself.
3/ The R had a policy on drug use with clear rules on substance abuse as well as supporting those with drug problems. It included use of illegal drugs as drug abuse & stated that working under the influence of drugs was unacceptable. The R had a screening/testing programme.
1/ LBH&F v Keable: EAT upholds ET reinstatement order whilst upholding an unfair dismissal finding where the allegation wasn't clearly set out & the dismissing officer didn't provide an opportunity to comment on lesser sanctions before dismissing bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT… #ukemplaw
2/ Bizarrely, I was present at the place where the events leading to this dismissal took place. K worked for LBHF & attended the counter-protest to the Enough is Enough rally outside Parliament against Labour antisemitism. He did so as secretary of Labour Against the Witch-Hunt.
3/ To be clear, I was there in support of the Jewish community's concern at the stain of antisemitism, rather than part of the counter-protest seeking to downplay or repudiate those concerns, but I suspect I was within Mr Keable's earshot.