|
| |||||||
| |||||||
|
| |||||||
|
19/11/2009 The Court of Appeal has decided that even though an employee works on a ship registered abroad, as long as he can establish a link with the UK, he will be able to claim unfair dismissal. The House of Lords approach in Serco was affirmed in that the overridding concern is not where the employer is based, but where the employee is based, and that depends on where the employee's duty begins and ends.
The employer's appeal was therefore rejected and the case allowed to proceed.
|
||||
|
The transcript of this case follows:- Diggins v Condor Marine Crewing Services Ltd [2009] (usually found at the Bailli or Employment Appeals websites) | ||
|
Some recent employment cases:- 2009 Autoklenz 'Subcontractors' were employees - the contractual substitution clause was just 'window dressing' - Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher & Ors [2009] EWCA Civ 1046 Contract was ultra vires but employee still able to pursue unfair dimsissal claim under ERA 96 - Shrewsbury & Telford Hospital NHS Trust v Lairikyengbam [2009] UKEAT 0499_08_2108 Redundancies - ECJ rules that consultations do not need to begin until the parent company decides which subsidiary will be affected - Akavan Erityisalojen Keskusliitto AEK ry and Others v Fujitsu Siemens Computers Oy - ECJ [2009] Case C-44/08 ECJ rules holiday entitlement must not be lost through illness - Pereda v Madrid Movilidad SA - ECJ [2009] C-277/08 Costs follow lies (breaching confidentiality in a compromise agreement) - Dunedin Housing Association Ltd v. Donaldson - UKEAT [2009] 0014_09_0807 Pre-contractual negotiations can not be used as evidence for the meaning of a contract - Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd & Ors [2009] UKHL 38 Failure to fully exhaust statutory dispute resolution procedures means a claimant is barred from seeking redress in the courts - Booth v Oldham MBC [2009] EWCA Civ 880 Employers can not hide behind 'substantial equivalence' arguments to justify post TUPE contract changes - TAPERE v SOUTH LONDON AND MAUDSLEY NHS TRUST - [2009] UKEAT 0410_08_1908 The EAT rejects the refusing of the sole candidate for a job by citing conflict of interest and health and safety arguments - Amnesty International v Ahmed - [2009] UKEAT 0447_08_1308 |
||
| Downloading, publishing, forwarding or any distribution etc of this or any other WorkRep article is subject to license. Workers (excluding HR, reps or consultants etc) researching their own tribunal cases may freely download up to 50 articles for their own personal and non commercial use. Do you have a problem at work? Are you being discriminated against harassed or victimised at work or have you been unfairly dismissed or wrongfully dismissed? If you are suffering from bullying victimisation or discrimination at work you need to contact WorkRep early on. Whatever your employment problem is, even if you have failed in your tribunal case and there is now a costs application against you we will try to help. click for further information about problems at work |
||
|
Disclaimer: articles and information published by WorkRep.co.uk are for general information purposes only. Please read the site info before using this website © 2009 Workrep | ||