In Brief: Case Law Special (August 2020)Posted in : Supplementary Articles NI on 29 July 2020
This month’s 'In Brief' is a common law catch up. It can be hard to keep up to date with case law developments – it’s all too easy to miss an important decision that has major implications for employers and employees. For this very reason we decided to compile a list of some of the most interesting employment cases that have been decided in the last few months.
If you want to know more about any of the cases, each has a link to a more detailed case review on the Northern Ireland Employment Law Hub, where you will also find a further link to the full judgement online.
Dismissal tends to be an area that continues to be challenging for Claimants and Respondents. An example of a fair dismissal in Crean v BT Plc  shows the importance of following a fair dismissal procedure even when the misconduct leading to the dismissal seems justified. Balcetis v Ulsterbus Ltd & Translink  is a good example of how an employer can successfully defend a dismissal claim.
A fatal flaw in many dismissals is prejudging the outcome as happened in Hyett V Stock Bounty Limited  and not conducting a thorough enough investigation as was the case in Wardle v RMS Cash Solutions Ltd  where the tribunal found that the respondent failed to properly engage in finding evidence of intent but rather took a misdescription as proof of dishonest intent.
In Chowdhury v Marsh Farm Futures  procedural defects resulted in a case being remitted back to the ET where the individual carrying out the investigation had been involved in the initial complaints that had been made and had also prepared a disciplinary letter.
Remedies for Unfair Dismissal
Findings of unfair dismissal can be costly for employers and when you take pension loss into account some awards can be quite substantial as happened in Austin v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust  in which the pension loss alone amounted to £96,700 net.
In Fotheringhame v Barclays Services Ltd  the EAT confirmed that interest payments were not due on remedies of re-engagement. Reinstatement is not a common remedy in unfair dismissal cases but the NIIT ordered this in the case of O’Hare v Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service  in which a firefighter was awarded reinstatement where the tribunal criticised the sanction imposed by the respondent.
As many employers are preparing for restructuring and potential redundancies we are reminded of the importance of consistency and fairness in redundancy selection to avoid claims of discrimination due to unfair selection as was the case in Taylor-Hamieh v The Ritz Hotel Casino Ltd .
In Gwynedd Council v Barratt & Others  the importance of providing the right of appeal in a redundancy dismissal was highlighted.
As we eagerly await the outcome of the Supreme Court hearing of the Uber case this recent employment tribunal decision - Harris & Kearney v Excel Brickworks Ltd  - shows that there are still many issues to be resolved regarding employment status. If you would like to refresh your memory of the arguments that have arisen in the Uber cases we have a number of case reviews:
- Employment Tribunal: Aslam, Farrar and Others v Uber BV and others 
- Employment Appeal Tribunal: Uber B.V. and Others v Mr Y Aslam and Others 
- Court of Appeal: Uber v Aslam & others 
You can visit the Case Law section here on the Hub to find these cases and many more.
Recent Case Law
- BC v Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland 
- Duley v NHS Sheffield Clinical Commissioning Group 
- Chalimoniuk v Transkol Limited and FN Transport Limited 
- Heskett v Secretary of State for Justice 
- R (On the Application of the Independent Workers’ Union of Great Britain) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Anor 
The information in this article is provided as part of Legal-Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article.