Employment Discrimination. A barrister brought proceedings against successive heads of chambers and the head clerk of her chambers for race discrimination following conduct of three clerks. The employment tribunal dismissed the complaints on the grounds that the barrister suffered no detriment and the chambers' actions had not been taken on grounds of race. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the appeal, held that the decision to maintain the clerks' employment had not been taken to avoid the risk of reputational damage for harbouring racists in their clerks' room.
Employment Sex discrimination. The employee, a domestic servant, had brought a claim, inter alia, for direct discrimination and harassment against her employer, who was a diplomat. On the whole, the employee had been successful in her claim. The employer appealed against the tribunal's decision claiming diplomatic immunity. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the appeal, held that the employer did not have diplomatic immunity in respect of the employee's claim as the employer had contended.
Employment Contract of service. In allowing the employee's appeal and dismissing the employer's cross-appeal (Lord Sumption dissenting), the Supreme Court ruled on various issues arising out of the termination of the employee's contract of employment and the terms and conditions contained therein, including in particular, whether a repudiation of a contract of employment by the employer which took the form of an express and immediate dismissal automatically terminated the contract or whether the normal contractual rule that the repudiation should be accepted by the other party applied equally to that case.
Employment Unfair dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal determined that, in applying the Polkey principles following a finding that the employer had treated the employees unfairly with the result that the employees had lacked proper accreditation to carry out their work as welders, the employment tribunal had erred in finding that the lack of accreditation had been a negative factor against the employees when considering if they would, were it not for their unfair dismissal, have been made redundant under the employer's redundancy procedure.
Unfair dismissal Entitlement to compensation. An employment judge refused to review her that an employee had been unfairly dismissed and an award for the period up to the date the employer had gone into administration in the light of new evidence of a transfer of undertaking. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employee's appeal, held that capping the employee's losses as at the date the employer went into administration had been wrong in light of the new material concerning the transfer.
Epitropos tou Elegktikou Sinedriou sto Ipourgio Politismou kai Tourismou v Ipourgio Politismou kai Tourismou – Ipiresia Dimosionomikou Elenchou and another
European Union Jurisdiction. The Court of Justice of the European Union (the Court) made a preliminary ruling in the instant case that the relevant Greek authority, 'the Elegktiko Sinedrio', had not constituted a 'court or tribunal' within the meaning of art 267 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union, and consequently, had not been entitled to send a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court.
Employment Disability. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) dismissed the employee's appeal in respect of disability discrimination claim, deciding that the employment tribunal had applied the correct test, as at the date of her dismissal. However, the EAT further held that the employee should not have been ordered to pay a deposit of 200 on the grounds that her claim had no prospect of success.
Unfair dismissal Determination whether dismissal fair or unfair. An employee was dismissed for removing goods from a shop without paying for them. The Employment Tribunal (the ET) dismissed his claim of unfair dismissal on the grounds that the employer had formed a reasonable belief as to the employee's dishonesty and breach of trust on reasonable grounds, following a reasonable investigation. The employee appealed on the basis that the ET's conclusion was perverse. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the ET's conclusion had been unsustainable.
Employment tribunal Procedure. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) allowed the employer firm of solicitors' appeal against the employment tribunal's decision that the employer had victimised the employee. The EAT took the view that the tribunal had failed to give adequate reasons for its decision.
Income tax Relief. The First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) held, inter alia, that the payment made to the taxpayer by his employers had been correctly determined as payment in lieu of notice and had indeed been subject to deduction of tax. Accordingly, the taxpayer's appeal would be dismissed.