Rowstock Ltd and another v Jessemey and another

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.

Badmos v Family Mosaic Housing Association

Unfair dismissal Redundancy. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), in dismissing the employee's appeal against the employment tribunal's finding that the employee had been unfairly dismissed, ruled that it had been wrong for the employment tribunal to substitute its own view for that of the employer in relation to the redundancy pool issue. However, it found that the tribunal had gone on to made further findings as to the selection process, which had supported its conclusions that: (1) the dismissal had been unfair; and (2) for the purpose of the complaints of race discrimination, the burden of proof had shifted and the employer had not discharged that burden. Accordingly, the EAT affirmed the tribunal's findings notwithstanding its conclusion on the redundancy pool issue.

Kenny and others v Ministry for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and others

Employment Equality of treatment of men and women. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 141 EC Treaty and Council Directive (EEC) 75-117 (on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women) in proceedings between Margaret Kenny and 13 other civil servants, on the one hand, and the Irish Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and others concerning a difference in pay between the employees in the main proceedings and another group of civil servants.

*Petersen and another v Finanzamt Ludwigshafen

European Union Freedom of movement. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in proceedings between applicants, who were husband and wife, and the Tax office in Ludwigshafen, Germany concerning the latter's refusal to grant an income tax exemption in respect of the husband's income from activity carried out in Benin in the context of a development aid project financed by the Danish International Development Agency.

Bailey v Hillingdon London Borough Council

Employment Unfair dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal of the employer local authority, against the finding of the employment tribunal that the authority had been in breach of the .

*Davies v Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

Unfair dismissal Determination whether dismissal fair or unfair. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that, in determining whether an employer had been entitled to rely on a final written warning given to an employee in earlier disciplinary proceedings, the broad test, as laid down by s98(4) of the was whether, in the particular case, it was reasonable for the employer to treat the conduct reason, taken together with the circumstances of the final written warning, as sufficient to dismiss the employee. It was not the function of the employment tribunal to re-open the final warning and rule on an issue raised by the employee as to whether the final warning should, or should not, have been issued and whether it was a legally valid warning or a nullity.

Biluan and another v Mental Health Care (UK) Ltd

Redundancy Employees working at residential home for persons with mental disabilities. The employees worked at a residential home for persons with mental disabilities. After they were made redundant, they brought a claim for unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal held that the employees had been unfairly dismissed because they had been assessed on criteria designed for use in a recruitment context and no account had been taken of their past performance. The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the employer's appeal, having found that although some of the tribunal's reasons had been flawed, its primary reason had been one that had been open to it.

Hamilton v LTRS Estates Ltd T/A Orwells

Employment Tips, gratuities and service charges. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) ruled that a case which had been remitted by a previous EAT to an employment tribunal for a re-hearing was limited to a re-hearing of those issues which had been under appeal before the previous EAT and no others.

Jafri v Secretary of State for Justice

Employment Dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal of an employee, who had worked at an open prison as a teacher and learning specialist. Following allegations of harassment and bullying, made against the employee by a colleague, he was dismissed by his employer. The employee had claimed unfair dismissal as a result of his having made certain 'protected disclosures'.

A v B

Employment Unfair dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal found that the employment tribunal had been correct to give permission to the employer to rely on the employee's spent conviction at the hearing for the latter's claims for unfair dismissal and race discrimination as it had applied the correct legal test for determining the relevance of the evidence.