Issue 10 - 25th May 2006

Thursday 25 May 2006

Share This Page

Email This Page

CASES

Discrimination compensation

Miles v Gilbank [2006] EWCA Civ 543

Under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 an employer is vicariously responsible for acts done by an employee in the course of his employment (s41(1)), an employee is liable for acts for which the employer is made vicariously liable (s42(2)). The employee is also liable for the acts of other employees if he aids the employer to commit acts of unlawful discrimination (s42(1)). In this case the company was dissolved. The director and manager of the company was found joint and severally liable for not only her own acts of discrimination but those of other employees, due to her fostering and encouraging a campaign of bullying. The award for injury to feelings of £25,000 was not excessive. It involved the well-being of the Claimant?s unborn child giving the case added seriousness. Click Here for more info

Brash-Hall v Getty Images Ltd [2006] EWCA 531

Compensation is to be assessed so as to put the Claimant into the position in which she would have been if the Respondent had not acted unlawfully by dismissing her. Where the Claimant would have been made redundant if not dismissed, the Tribunal should also have taken into account the full pay and benefits she would have received up to that point.
Click Here for more info

Disability discrimination

SurreyCounty Council v Hay UKEAT/0710/05/ZT

In Mid-Staffordshire General Hospitals NHS Trust v Cambridge [2003] IRLR 566 the EAT held the employer has is a duty to carry out a proper assessment in order to comply with its duty to make reasonable adjustments. However there is no obligation in law for there to be a formal risk assessment. What must occur prior to the discharge of the duty is an examination of the risks. For more info Click Here

Normal retirement age and TUPE

Cross and Gibson v British Airways [2006 ] EWCA 549

Under s109 Employment Rights Act 1996 employees over the statutory "normal retirement age" for someone in their position are excluded from the right not to be unfairly dismissed. The Appellants had a normal retirement age of 60 under their previous employer. On transfer the new employer required flying crew to retire at 55. The Court of Appeal held that the normal retiring age pre-transfer does not transfer to a new employer under Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 as this is not an individual contractual right but a provision which is subject to the facts at the relevant time.
Click Here for more info

Latest tweets from Garden Court Chambers

Follow us on Twitter

Tweets by gardencourtlaw

We are top ranked by independent legal directories and consistently win awards

+ View more awards