Articles by ‘Gemma Ospedale’

In General Dynamics Information Technology Limited v Carranza, a Tribunal has had its decision that the employee was subject to disability discrimination for a failure to make reasonable adjustments and unfairly dismissed overturned by the EAT.

In Contract Bottling Limited v Cave and another the EAT has overturned a Tribunal decision on a Polkey reduction.

The case of Griffin v Plymoth Hospital NHS Trust is a Court of Appeal case which considered the guidelines for calculating pension loss on a constructive unfair dismissal claim.

In Coventry University v Mian, the Court of Appeal has held that an employer did not breach its duty of care to an employee in bringing disciplinary proceedings against him.

In Uniqwin UK Limited v Weston the EAT has overturned a Tribunal decision that the employee was unfairly dismissal for gross misconduct. It held that the Tribunal had failed to consider whether the employer had carried out a reasonable investigation regarding the alleged misconduct.

In Countrywide Estate Agents and others v Turner the EAT has overturned an Employment Tribunal decision regarding the way in which the Claimant’s compensatory award for a successful constructive unfair dismissal claim was calculated….

In Warm Zones v Thurley and another the Queens Bench Division of the High Court has granted the employer claimant a fairly unusual mandatory injunction requiring the two Defendants to permit an independent IT expert to inspect their personal computers and take images where necessary.

In Sunrise Brokers LLP v Rodgers the High Court has considered a quite interesting factual situation regarding the applicability or otherwise of restrictive covenants in circumstances where the employee has left but the employer considers he remained employed for his notice period.

In a landmark judgment which has received much publicity because of its wide-ranging implications for many employers, the EAT has decided the issue of overtime and holiday pay – and has held that holiday pay calculations must include overtime payments made on a regular basis, even if not guaranteed. In the conjoined cases of Bear Scotland Limited and others v Fulton and others; Hertel (UK) Limited v Woods and others; and Amec Group Limited v Law and others the issue of whether or not the calculation of holiday pay for employees and workers should or should not include overtime was decided. The EAT has held that all elements of an employee or worker’s normal remuneration, which includes payments for non-guaranteed overtime, must be included in the calculation for holiday pay under the EU Working Time Directive and that the Working Time Regulations can be construed to allow this. The emphasis is on “normal” pay, and as such it follows that overtime must have been paid for a long enough period to be a consistent payment and so class as “normal”. Employers will thus need to use a reference period to calculate normal pay and, although the EAT did not suggest what this might be, 12 weeks may well be deemed reasonable by the Courts.

The High Court decision in Energy Renewals Limited v Borg and others, IRLR [2014] page 713 is an interesting case on breach of terms of an agency agreement and breach of fiduciary duties as well as misuse of confidential information.

In Wright v Nipponkoa Insurance (Europe) Limited the EAT has upheld an Employment Judge’s Order that a Claimant must pay 7 individual deposits in order to continue with each of his allegations of discrimination and whistleblowing. He was ordered to pay a total of £2,100, £300 in respect of each allegation. In confirming this, the EAT noted the broad discretion given to Tribunals both in deciding to order, and in setting, the amount of a deposit. The ET rules which came into force in 2013 allow a Tribunal to order a deposit of up to £1,000 in relation to any specific allegation; but this is not an overall limit – hence the Tribunal was able to order £300 per allegation in this case under the Rules.

In The Commissioners for HMRC v Jones and others (T/a Holmescales Riding Centre) the EAT has provided useful guidance on what does and does not constitute an apprenticeship. The Tribunal had found that trainees at a livery stables were employed under contracts of apprenticeship rather than contracts of service. They all received training and funding towards professional qualifications to teach riding and performed various duties around the yard including teaching riding lessons. The employer received the livery and tuition fees.