Employment Unfair Dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) dismissed the employee's appeal against the rejection of her unfair dismissal claim. The EAT decided that the employment tribunal had been entitled to find that there had been a redundancy situation, that the employee had been dismissed for redundancy and that the dismissal had been fair. Accordingly, the tribunal had been entitled to find that there had been adequate consultation and had given sufficient reasons for that finding.
Employment Duty of servant. The claimant former employer of the defendants issued proceedings alleging that they had breached a confidentially clause and restrictive covenants of their contracts. The Queen's Bench Division held that the defendants had breached their contracts by dealing with the claimant's clients, but that they had not used its client list. On that basis, an injunction and damages would be granted, as the defendants had conspired to injure the claimant.
Redundancy Calculation of amount of payment. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in circumstances where the parties had reached an agreement on the employer's appeal, dismissed the employee's cross-appeal that sought to stablish that, because the employer had erroneously paid former employees an enhanced payment in a redundancy package that was over and above the statutory requirements in previous redundancy situations, it had been obliged to pay the employee that payment in his package.
Restraint of trade by agreement Employer and employee. Mr Coppage had been employed as a director by the claimant company. When he resigned, he became involved in a new company which took on customers of his former employer. The claimant commenced proceedings alleging breach of the non-solicitation clause in Mr Coppage's employment contract and breach of fiduciary duty. The claimant succeeded at first instance. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed Mr Coppage's appeal, finding that the judge had not erred in finding the non-solicitation clause to be a reasonable one and in ordering the quantum of damages that he had.
Company Director. The claimants alleged that the first defendant, the former director of the first claimant company, had acted in breach of his duties as director of the company and in breach of his obligations under his employment contract, including by taking advantage of lucrative business opportunities which had come his way during his work for the company. The Chancery Division held that the defendant had committed breaches of his obligations under his written contract of employment with the company and of his fiduciary duties as a director of the company. It was settled law that the mere fact that activities were described by an employee as 'preparatory' to competition did not mean that they were legitimate. It was a breach of the duty of fidelity for an employee to recruit or solicit another employee to act in competition.
Employment Redundancy. Servisair UK Ltd dismissed certain employees on grounds of redundancy. The employees brought proceedings before the employment tribunal (the tribunal) which held that the dismissals had been unfair as there had been no redundancy situation and therefore no potentially fair reason for the employees' dismissals. Servisair appealed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal on the basis that the tribunal judge had erred in her statement and application of the redundancy test as set out in Murray v Foyle Meats Ltd IRLR 562. The matter was remitted to be heard afresh by a new tribunal.
Redundancy Payment. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employees' appeal against the employment tribunal's decision to dismiss their claims for enhanced redundancy payments, held that the tribunal had failed to address the evidence adduced by the employees that supported their case that the enhanced redundancy payment scheme in question had operated without exception for all employees. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of the EAT.
Employment Redundancy. The employer carried out a cost-reduction exercise. A colleague of the employee, C, volunteered for redundancy, but that offer was refused by the employer and the employee was made redundant instead. The employee successfully brought proceedings for unfair dismissal. The employer appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held, in dismissing the appeal, that the tribunal had not erred by failing to take into account the totality of the dismissal process, nor had it taken into account the fact that C had resigned shortly after the redundancy exercise.
Employment Equality of treatment of men and women. The Supreme Court gave guidance on the interpretation of s1(6) of the in circumstances where the appellants successfully argued that male employees of the respondent local authority were 'in the same employment' as they were, notwithstanding the fact that they were employed on different terms and conditions and at different establishments from the appellants.
Unfair dismissal Termination by consent. The employee who had been employed by a recruitment agency to work for another company was terminated. The employer could no longer provide him with work under the original contract and his employment was terminated. He brought proceedings before an employment tribunal (the tribunal) which concluded that termination had been consensual. He appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal which took the view that the tribunal had been wrong in its conclusions and that the matter should be remitted to a freshly constituted tribunal for re-consideration.