||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 76 (Apr)
||Employment Appeal Tribunal
Recorder Luba QC, Mr B Beynon and Mr S Yeboah
||John Crosfill (instructed by Lawdata Ltd) for the employer.
||Paul Archer (Solicitor) Lemon & Co for the employee.
||Christopher Milsom (instructed by Equality & Human Rights Commission) for the intervener.
||5 March 2013
Employment - Unfair dismissal - Victimisation - Employee dismissed one year after turning 65 - Employment tribunal (tribunal) finding dismissal unfair - Employer appealing submitting tribunal failing to make Polkey deduction - Whether tribunal erring - Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 - .
Employment Unfair dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) allowed the appeal of the employer against the failure of the employment tribunal (the tribunal) to make any deduction in the compensation awarded to reflect the likelihood of the employee, who had been dismissed one year after he had turned 65, being fairly dismissed had the correct procedures been followed. The employee cross-appealed from the rejection of the victimisation claim and the Equality and Human Rights Commission intervened in support of the crossappeal. The EAT held that the judgment of the tribunal in rejecting the employee's post-employment victimisation case would be upheld and his appeal (actually pursued by way of a cross-appeal) on that point would be dismissed.
- An Official transcript is the final version of the judgment prepared by shorthand writers. LexisLibrary contains all judgments from the High Court and aboveView Judgment
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases