Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2014] All ER (D) 22 (Apr)
Court: Employment Appeal Tribunal

Langstaff J

Representation Nicola Newbegin (instructed by Berry Smith LLP, Cardiff) for the employee.
  Sarah Keogh (instructed by Gateley LLP, Manchester) for the employer.
Judgment Dates: 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.

The Case

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.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.