A treat for #ukemplaw-yers over the next couple of days - a live streamed CA case in which @k21fem is appearing (leading @MilsomChr on his 3rd CA appearance of 2021) - Chief Constable of Avon & Somerset v Eckland. My thread on the EAT decision is here:
The case starts with a very important discussion of the fact that the CA sends a detailed letter to solicitors about how to produce authorities bundles & the need for a hard copy, & Underhill LJ suggests counsel producing bundles should get hold of that letter!
At present, the Chief Constable's counsel, Dijen Basu QC, is trying to persuade the CA not to follow the Sup Ct's decision in P, but seemingly on the basis that P was wrongly decided or decided on a per incuriam basis, something Underhill LJ makes clear can't be done.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ Main v SpaDental: EAT emphasises the need for ET to recognise that a self-employed person can be a worker if not dealing with the company as a client or customer. Appeal allowed. assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/619e11a7… #ukemplaw
2/ M is a dentist. He brought a WTR claim against SD re entitlement to holiday pay. M had previously had a practice of his own. He sold it but continued to work for the buyer under both a contract of employment as MD & under a service agreement.
3/ Throughout the period from sale of his business until resignation, M paid NICs as a self-employed individual, & also declared himself self employed in bankruptcy proceedings.
1/ Gray v University of Portsmouth: a useful reminder of the rigour with which an ET is expected to critically evaluate an employer's objective justification defence in the context of dismissing an absent disabled employee bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT… #ukemplaw
2/ G is autistic. He was a Service Delivery Analyst in the Uni's information service department. A disagreement with a manager led G to go on sick leave for a stress-related decision. G didn't return to work.
3/ The Uni had a 4-stage absence management process, potentially leading to dismissal. There was no question the Uni was very accommodating of G's needs & took this process seriously and carefully. G was reluctant to engage in aspects of the process or in return to work proposals
1/ Hovis v Louton: EAT makes clear ET can reject wrongful dismissal claim in conduct case even where R's witnesses to the conduct don't give evidence at the ET. There can still be evaluation of the credibility of internal evidence. assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/619b9d3d… #ukemplaw
2/ L was a delivery driver. His manager & manager's wife said they spotted him on the motorway & that he was smoking whilst driving during work. An internal disciplinary found this to be so & L was dismissed. He brought unfair & wrongful dismissal claims.
3/ L's unfair dismissal claim failed at the ET, but it allowed his wrongful claim because he gave evidence denying he had been smoking & the manager & his wife didn't give evidence to the ET. Hovis appealed that decision. The EAT allowed the appeal.
1/ Niedzielska v Faccenda Foods: Reversal of strike out of LiP claim providing useful reinforcement of Cox v Adecco & an example of the EAT finding an EJ went against its own correct self-direction on the law (the 1st since DPP v Greenberg?).
2/ N worked for FF as a production operative. She went off sick in July 2018 due to pain & swelling in her feet & was dismissed for medical incapability in April 2019 following an OH report suggesting she'd not be able to return in the following 6 months.
3/ N was a LiP. Polish is her 1st language. Her ET1 is, understandably, in imperfect English but the EAT held it clear that N was claiming unfair dismissal & discrimination arising from disability, & perhaps a failure to make reasonable adjustments claim.
1/ Emuemukoro v Croma Vigilant (Scotland) Ltd: A claim/response can be struck out at the start of trial if the party's actions mean no fair trial is possible within the trial window even if it could have been possible at a later date.
2/ In this case, the matter got to day 1 of a 5 day trial without CV having prepared witness statements & with it preparing a bundle excluding most of the relevant documents. CV had ignored lots of ET orders & hadn't engaged with E in preparing for the hearing.
3/ On the morning of the 1st day, the EJ struck out the response, finding that a fair trial wasn't possible within the time & that the only reasonable course was strike out rather than an adjournment of many months. Blockbuster v James was relied upon.
2/ S was a senior sales exec with a small capital-raising/advisory firm. He entered a personal relationship with a Ukrainian lady. They split up & he then became convinced he was being continually monitored by a Russian gang to whom she had connections.
3/ S's concerns were found to be paranoid delusions. They resulted in him making wholesale changes to various aspects of his life, including installing CCTV, changing the locks, refusing on occasion to go home & a real nervousness about use of communications tech.