Court of Appeal
Tilson v Alstom Transport  EWCA Civ 1308
Given the extent to which the Claimant was integrated into the organisation of the Respondent end user, absent any agency arrangements, there would have been no doubt that even if there were no express contract, one would readily be implied. However where an agency is involved, the onus is on the Claimant to establish that a contract should be implied and that it is necessary to do so. In the present circumstances the Employment Tribunal had erred in doing so. For the full judgment click here.
Employment Appeal Tribunal
Tiffin v Lester Aldridge LLP UKEAT/0255/10/DM
The Claimant, a Fixed Share Partner in the Respondent firm, was a partner within section 1(1) Partnership Act 1890 and therefore not an employee within the meaning of section 230(1) Employment Rights Act 1996. For the full judgment click here.
Berry v Recruitment Revolution UKEAT/0190/10/LA
The Claimant made several claims of age discrimination based on the terms of advertisements which used terminology suggesting that they were targeted at younger people. Although Regulation 7 (1) (a) Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 is capable of covering the issuing of discriminatory advertisements, the Claimant had not applied for the positions and therefore they did not impact upon him. For the full judgment click here.
Wookcock v Cumbria Primary Care Trust UKEAT/0489/09/RN
Notice of dismissal timed to expire before the date at which the Claimant would have been entitled to take early retirement was on the grounds of Claimant's age but in the circumstances it was justified. It had the legitimate aim of avoiding additional costs where the reason for dismissal was redundancy, the Claimant's post had for practical purposes disappeared much earlier but he had been kept on, and the Employment Tribunal found that there was no work available which the Claimant would have taken. The EAT doubted the decision in Cross v British Airways plc  IRLR 423 that costs alone cannot constitute sufficient justification. For the full judgmentclick here
Hickling t/a Imperial Day Nursery and Ors v Marshall UKEAT/0217/10/CEA
The Employment Tribunal did not err in upholding a claim by an employee for failure to consult contrary to the provisions of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 in circumstances in which there were no employee representatives. Howard v Millrise Ltd  IRLR 84 applied. Although the claim should have been framed under Regulation 13(11) and brought under 15(1)(d), there was no prejudice to the Respondent. For full judgmentclick here.