2/ In short (as relevant), S was dismissed from employment by N (R1). R2 was a company owning all shares in R1. R4 is the chair of R2 (& chief exec of another respondent, R3). S brought a standard EqA claim against R1, s.110-112 claims against R2 & a s.112 claim against R4.
3/ R2 had a power of attorney to allow its director to execute documents terminating R1's employment. S had notes of a meeting suggesting his dismissal was discussed with R4 & that culture played a part. S's claim was that being non-Lithuanian was central to his dismissal.
4/ The ET made deposit orders re the claims against R2 & R4 (& struck out claims against R3 - that wasn't appealed). S appealed against those deposit orders.
The appeals were allowed in part given the EJ's lack of reasoning intimated a failure to take account of relevant matters.
5/ However, of greater interest & use is something that hadn't been argued - whether s.111 could apply at all against R2. The EAT's focus centred on s.111(7).
6/ Taking assistance from the Explanatory Notes, the EAT held that s.111 only applied where A was in a position in which they had obligations under the EqA to B (i.e. where B could bring a claim if A breached the EqA against it). It doesn't cover wider relationships.
7/ As R2's relationship with R1 wasn't covered by the EqA's protections, the claimant couldn't bring a s.111 claim against R2.
8/ As regards s.112, no such restriction applied. 2useful points were made by the EAT on s.112: (i) it's possible to bring a s.112 claim even without there being any underlying claim; (ii) whilst s.112 requires A to 'knowingly help', A doesn't have to intend breach as an outcome.
9/ A final point worth noting was made re deposit orders, concerning the care which an ET should take before making a deposit order where there's a dispute of fact - it's a common point but neatly phrased.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ Sejpal v Rodericks Dental Ltd: a must-read case in which the EAT finds the worker status test is very simple, & then throws hand grenades under the reliance on an unfettered right of substitution as a way of denying worker status. caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/eat/2022/91 #ukemplaw
2/ The appeal concerns the question of whether a dismissed dentist was a worker under the ERA (s.230) and in employment under the EqA (s.83(2)). In simple terms, we're looking at questions of limb (b) worker status.
3/ The contractual position was one in which S had worked under an "Associateship Contract" throughout the relevant periods. It had a substitution clause (of which more later) & a clause saying it was a contract for services and not an employment contract.
1/ DWP v Boyers: When considering a s.15 EqA claim re dismissal of a long absent employee, it's appropriate for the ET to look outside the strict contractual terms when reviewing proportionality & the potential solutions to avoid dismissal. gov.uk/employment-app… #ukemplaw
2/ In this case, B had been an admin assistant for 12 years. She was disabled as a result of chronic migraines & anxiety. She considered this to be exacerbated by a colleague & fell out with management due to how they failed to deal with the issue.
3/ After some time, B went off sick. She remained off work for the last 11 months of employment save a 6-week period of a work trial elsewhere. She'd refused to allow DWP to see OH reports & said she wasn't well enough to attend the capability meetings.
1/ Rentplus UK v Coulson: Another HHJ Tayler judgment to keep in your "Essential case law" folder. Almost everything you need to know about the s.207A TULR(C)A uplift in 1 neat, concise judgment. assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62907f52… #ukemplaw
2/ The case concerned a redundancy dismissal for a senior director. The ET found the redundancy process a sham, merely used as a vehicle for a dismissal decided on beforehand.
The ET awarded a 25% uplift for failures to comply with the ACAS Code.
The EAT upheld the uplift.
3/ HHJ Tayler provided lots of useful comments on the law on the uplift. First, a simple statement of the 4 stages of the s.207A test (though see Slade v Biggs for a 4-stage breakdown of the last question):
1/ Singh v Metroline West Ltd: It was a fundamental breach of contract to deliberately not pay wages due - it was immaterial that the employer took this action to encourage the employee to engage in a disciplinary process. assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62a208e9… #ukemplaw
2/ In this case, S's contract provided for entitlement to contractual sick pay. S went off sick, it being possible that he did so in order to avoid disciplinary proceedings. S's contract allowed for cessation of sick pay if a thorough investigation found the employee not sick.
3/ There was no such investigation in this case. The employer merely ceased S's contractual sick pay for 7 weeks in order to encourage his participation in the disciplinary process which the employee suspected he'd gone off sick to avoid taking part in.
1/ Dafiaghor-Olomu v Community Integrated Care: In a case where the statutory cap applies & compensation is paid pursuant to an ET order, no credit is given for that payment as against the statutory cap is compensation is then revised upwards. #ukemplaw
2/ The above may sound confusing. The facts will make things simpler. D won her ordinary unfair dismissal claim & CIC was ordered to pay c.£46k in compensation. D then successfully appealed the remedy judgment & on remission the ET decided she was entitled to c.129k compensation.
3/ The relevant statutory cap at the time was £74,200. Should the £46k count against the cap (so that c.£28k remained owing on the remitted judgment) or should the £46k be taken off the £129k so that CIC now had to pay the statutory cap amount of £74,200?
1/ The EAT's judgment in Rodgers v Leeds Laser Cutting has been handed down, but hasn't yet reached the National Archives or EAT website, & I'm not technically proficient enough to upload a copy. Which means you'll have to take my word about what it says! #ukemplaw
2/ The case involves a laser operator who, at the very start of 1st lockdown stopped going in to work. He had a young child with sickle cell anaemia & a young baby at risk as well. R was concerned about their risk of catching Covid.
3/ R's workplace was massive - the size of 1/2 a football pitch, usually with only 5 people working there. Social distancing wasn't a problem. LLC had also taken expert safety advice & put in place plenty of Covid precautions.