Redundancy Dismissal by way of redundancy. The employee had been dismissed ostensibly for redundancy. The employer appealed against the finding by the employment tribunal that the employee had been unfairly dismissed, contending that the tribunal had applied the wrong test in determining the reason for the employee's dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employer's appeal, ruled that, on the facts found, the dismissal had been for redundancy. Accordingly, the tribunal had applied the wrong test and the case was remitted to the same tribunal to consider the provisions of of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Unfair dismissal Determination whether dismissal fair or unfair. The employment tribunal (the tribunal) upheld the employee's claims for unfair dismissal and age discrimination, deciding that the loss of the employee's post and her dismissal in consequence was not by reason of redundancy, but a dismissal for some other substantial reason (SOSR). The tribunal decided that the employee had been discriminated against on the grounds of her age by the appointment of a younger person to one of the new posts in the restructured organisation, and held that she had been unfairly dismissed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal reversed the tribunal's decision, taking the view that although the tribunal had been entitled to conclude that the dismissal had been for SOSR, it had been wrong to conclude on the evidence that it had been age discrimination. The assessment of the fairness of the dismissal had been flawed, but that issue would be remitted to a tribunal for determination.
Employment Unfair dismissal. The employees brought claims of unfair dismissal before the employment tribunal (the tribunal). The tribunal found that those claims were well founded and awarded compensation of 51,999.30 to the first employee and 9,031.04 to the second employee. The employer appealed against the decision on quantum. Allowing the appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal found that in the instant case the tribunal had considered what it would have seen as the correct outcome, and so had wrongly substituted its view for that of the employer.
Practice Post-trial or pre-judgment relief. In the course of claims for equitable compensation or damages for breach of duty or dishonest assistance against its former employees (the first and second defendant), the claimant was granted non-compete and confidentiality injunctions. The Chancery Division continued the injunctions against the first defendant, but discharged the confidentiality injunction against the second defendant where there was no evidence that he had breached confidentiality whilst employed with the claimant and where he did not have access to the claimant's confidential information.
Confidential information Injunction against disclosure of information. The claimants were granted injunctions, restraining the defendants using their confidential information. The defendants appealed on the basis that the parties' confidentiality agreement did not continue once a subcontract had been entered and that damages were an adequate remedy. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had correctly found that the confidentiality agreement continued after the subcontract and that the relief granted had been a matter within the discretion of the judge with which the court would not interfere.
Employment Unfair dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that an employment tribunal had erred in concluding that, because its decision to cease to provide business development services had been driven by financial considerations and the need to reduce costs, there had been no redundancy situation and that the employee had been dismissed by reason of redundancy. On the facts there had been a redundancy situation and the employee had been fairly dismissed.
Redundancy Employer's duty to consult appropriate trade union. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in hearing an appeal regarding claims for protective awards following collective redundancies, ordered a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union in respect of preliminary issues that had arisen regarding the compatibility of s188 of the with Council Directive (EC) 98-59 (on the approximation of the laws of the member states relating to collective redundancies).
Practice Summary judgment. The claimant sought summary judgment against the defendants in respect of its claim for breach of their employment contracts and breach of fiduciary obligations. It also sought a declaration that the defences had been struck out as a result of a breach of an unless order made in the case. The Chancery Division, in refusing the applications, held that there were triable issues which should be determined at trial and that it was far from obvious from patent deficiencies in the disclosure list that it had been prepared in apparent but not real compliance with the obligation to give discovery.
Restraint of trade by agreement Employer and employee. The first defendant left the claimant recruitment company to work for the second defendant recruitment company. The Queen's Bench Division allowed the claimant's claim for damages arising from the breach of restrictive covenants contained in the first defendant's contract. The restrictions had, subject to severing one phrase from two of the restrictions, been legally enforceable, the first defendant had been in breach and the second defendant had procured those breaches.
Employment Redundancy. The Employment Appeal, in allowing the employee's appeal in a claim for age discrimination, held that a local authority had not been required by an enactment to discriminate between the employee and younger dismissed employees in respect of redundancy pay.