Issue 36 - 25th July 2007

Wednesday 25 July 2007

Share This Page

Email This Page

COURT OF SESSION

Breach of contract

Morrish v NTL Group Ltd [2007] CSIH 56
Where a contract of employment expressly required 12 months' notice of termination and did not include a PILON clause, one could not be implied. More info

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

Correction of decisions

London Borough of Newham v Bone UKEAT/0243/07/CEA
The Tribunal erred in law in going beyond its jurisdiction by issuing a certificate of correction which made a fresh finding on an important matter of substance. This went beyond the kind of accidental slip or omission which may be covered by Rule 37(1) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004. More info

Review

Royal Bank of Scotland v Soper UKEAT/0080/07/LA
The Tribunal had erred in granting without a hearing an application for review of an order striking the Claimant's claim. Among other reasons, the Respondent was denied the opportunity of testing medical evidence presented as a reason for not pursuing the claim or complying with orders, the nature and effect of which was in dispute. Also, in dealing with the application for relief from a sanction, the Chairman ought to have had regard to all the factors listed in CPR3.9. More info

Disability discrimination

McDougall v Richmond Adult Community College UKEAT/0589/06/DM
Compulsory admission of a patient under the Mental Health Act is not automatically a disability under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 ("DDA"). However to be detained in a secure institution as a result of a mental impairment necessarily involves a restriction on a person's Claimant's day-to-day activities. In determining whether or not a condition is likely to recur for the purposes of the assessment of disability under the DDA, it is relevant to consider not only those matters extant at the date the tort was committed, but those occurring up to the date of the hearing. More info

Romec Ltd v Rudham UKEAT/0069/07/DA
In considering whether it was a reasonable adjustment under s4A DDA to extend a rehabilitation programme to allow the Claimant to return to work on reduced hours, the Tribunal should have considered whether this would have enabled the Claimant to return to full duties, thus removing the disadvantage he suffered compared with the non-disabled comparator. It was not enough for the Tribunal to decide that the programme would give the Claimant an opportunity to prove himself. More info

Race discrimination

Oyarce v Cheshire County Council UKEAT/0557/06/DA
Under s54A Race Relations Act 1976 and the Council Directive 2000/43/EC the reverse burden of proof applies to discrimination on grounds of race but not to victimisation. This is different to the other discrimination provisions. More info

Interclean Bus Services Ltd v Mudanowho UKEAT/0418/06/LA
The Tribunal had give inadequate reasons for inferring discrimination and the claim would therefore be remitted to a different Tribunal. More info

Equal pay

Middlesborough Borough Council v Surtees UKEAT/0077/07/CEA
There is no irrebuttable presumption of prima facie indirect sex discrimination where pay arrangements have a strong disparate impact on men and women, although in many cases the presumption may be extremely difficult to rebut in practice. In principle it is open to an employer to show that even although there is disparate adverse impact, that it is not in any way related to any act of the employer which is sex tainted, and thereby avoid the need to establish justification. In this case, limiting a pay protection scheme to those who were in a higher paid group as part of a job evaluation scheme was objectively justified. 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