*R (on the application of Rhodes) v Police and Crime Commissioner for Lincolnshire

Police Discipline. The Administrative Court held that the defendant Police and Crime Commissioner had fundamentally erred in his assessment of allegations made against the claimant, the Temporary Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police, which had led to the defendant suspending the claimant from duties. The interpretation of allegations adopted by the defendant to the effect that the claimant had dishonestly attempted to secure a settlement in employment tribunal proceedings relating to a fellow officer had not been supported by the documents relied upon, and it had been remarkable that there had been no mention of the claimant's impeccable character and reputation in the defendant's decision to suspend him for alleged dishonesty.

*Knowledgepoint 360 Group Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners

Social security Contributions. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (tribunal) allowed the Revenue and Customs Commissioners' (the Revenue's) appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (FTT). The tribunal reversed the FTT's decision to allow the taxpayer company's appeal against the Revenue's decision that payments made by the trustees of an employee benefit trust to employees of the taxpayer company had not constituted a gratuity and had therefore been liable to deductions in respect of primary and secondary Class 1 national insurance contributions.

Foster v Cardiff University

Employment Disability. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the employment tribunal had correctly dismissed the employee academic's claim for disability discrimination as it had correctly applied the law of the duty to make reasonable adjustments.

Lemonious v Church Commissioners

Employment Unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal decided that the employee had been unfairly dismissed but had not awarded him any compensation. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the employee's appeal and the matter was remitted to the same tribunal for reconsideration of the issue.

Chacko v London City Airport

Employment Unfair dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the employment tribunal had correctly construed and applied the relevant statutory test when it granted the employee's application for interim relief pending the hearing of his claim for unfair dismissal, on the grounds that his dismissal had been because of his trade union activities.

El-Kholy v Rentokil Initial Facilities Services (UK) Ltd

Employment Unfair dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the employment tribunal had correctly declined to hear the unfair dismissal claim of an employee whose solicitors had been at fault for failing to bring his unfair dismissal claim within the three-month deadline.

*Hayes v Willoughby

Tort Harassment. The claimant had brought proceedings against the defendant alleging harassment. The trial judge found that the defendant was protected by the defence of having been engaged in a course of conduct pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime (s1(3)(a) of the Prevention from Harassment Act 1997). The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the claimant's appeal. The Supreme Court, in dismissing the defendant's appeal, held that the necessary test in considering s1(3)(a) of the Act was that of rationality on the part of the alleged harasser. In the instant case, the defendant's acts had not, after a certain date, been rational and so he was not afforded the defence for that period.

Philip v Ide (trading as The Fish Basket)

Employment tribunal Procedure. The Employment Appeals Tribunal considered the employee's appeal against a finding of the employment tribunal that there had been no constructive unfair dismissal and no fundamental breach of contract. In dismissing the appeal, the EAT held that the tribunal had been entitled to draw the conclusions that it had, and had been entitled to allow the employer to adduce evidence to rebut an issue raised by the employee at the hearing.

Boardman v The Governing Body of Clarence High School and Nugent Care Society

Employment Unfair dismissal. The employee was a maths teacher at an independent secondary school for pupils with educational, behavioural and emotional difficulties. The employee was summarily dismissed following an incident with one male student. The employee successfully brought a claim for unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal.The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) quashed the tribunal's decision and remittedthe case for a rehearing. A second tribunal dismissed the claims for unfair and wrongful dismissal. The second EAT concluded that the second tribunal had erred in making incorrect findings of fact on critical issues. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the employer's appeal on the issue of unfair dismissal but held that the second EAT had not erred in relation to wrongful dismissal or the terms of the remittal.

Cyprien v Bradford Grammar School

Employment Disability. The Employment Appeal Tribunal found that the employment tribunal had been correct to find it did not have jurisdiction to hear the employee's claim for disability discrimination based on the employer's failure to make reasonable adjustments as it had applied the correct test for determining when the time would run for such a claim.