||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 22 (Apr)
||Employment Appeal Tribunal
||Nicola Newbegin (instructed by Berry Smith LLP, Cardiff) for the employee.
||Sarah Keogh (instructed by Gateley LLP, Manchester) for the employer.
||25 March 2014
Redundancy - Payment - Enhanced redundancy payment - Accrued holiday pay - Employer having had consistent practice over a period of years of making enhanced redundancy payments - Employment contracts not containing express provision concerning making of such payments - Employees seeking enhanced redundancy payments - Employment tribunal deciding employees entitled to such payments on basis of contractual implied term - Tribunal further deciding one employee but not other entitled to accrued holiday pay - Whether tribunal erring.
Redundancy Payment. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) dismissed the appeal by Peacock Stores (Peacock) against a decision of the employment tribunal which had rejected Peacock's argument that the employees concerned had not been entitled to enhanced redundancy payments (on statutory terms, without a cap). The EAT decided that the tribunal had correctly determined that based on Peacock's consistent past practice of making redundancy payments based on statutory terms but without a cap on either years of service or the amount of a weekly wage, a contractual term to that effect could be inferred.
- 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
- 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
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases