When using the closed procedure for national security purposes the claimant must still be provided with the gist of the employer's caseHome Office v Tariq [2010] EWCA Civ 462 | |||
www.workrep.co.uk | |||
Helping You About Links Contact Site Info HOME | |||
|
15/05/2010 In the case of Home Office v Tariq [2010] EWCA Civ 462 the Court of Appeal has ruled that closed material procedures used where national security is involved do not breach article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and are consequently in accord with the Human Rights Act that incorporated the ECHR into English law. The Court of Appeal did however stipulate that where a closed material procedure is used the employee must be provided with the gist of the evidence upon which the employer will be relying. This case is likely to be of rare relevance to the mass of British workers, but as in this case, guilt by association could mean that innocent workers could find that their security clearences cancelled because a friend or member of their family came to the attention of the security services. In this case Mr Tariq was suspended from his employment with the Home Office as an immigration officer owing to his close association with suspected terrorists (Mr Tariq's brother and cousin) who might possibly put him under pressure to use his position as an immigration officer for their purposes.Mr Tariq claimed indirect and direct discrimination against the Home Office on the grounds that he was a muslim of Pakistani origin, and that he was dismissed solely because he was of the same religion and race or ethnic origin as the suspected terrorists (the counsin being found guilty and the brother being exonerated). The House of Lords decision in Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF and another [2009] UKHL 28 HL was quoted by the EAT when it held that article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) obliged the Home Office to provide the Claimant with enough detail about allegations made so as to enable his legal team to be properly instructed. The case has been referred to an employment tribunal for a hearing on the merits of the claim. |
|||
The transcript of this case follows:-
Home Office v Tariq [2010] EWCA Civ 462 | |||
| 2010 Where an employer is contemplating disciplinary action the thoroughness of the investigation needs to reflect the seriousness of the consequences to a worker - Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust v Roldan [2010] EWCA Civ 522 Damages are not limited to the term of the breached fixed term contract (but reflect the total loss caused) - Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2010] EWCA Civ 571 The disclosing of without prejudice communications - Woodward v Santander [2010] UKEAT/0250/09/ZT Criterion for awarding uplifts under the Dispute Resolution Procedures - Lawless v Print Plus [2010] UKEAT/0333/09/JOJ A local council is a single establishment thus allowing white collar workers to use manual workers as comparators - City of Edinburgh v Wilkinson & ors [2010] UKEATS/0002/09/BI A compromise agreement can be valid even though the claimant does not understand it - McWilliam & Others v Glasgow City Council An employer can not repair a fundamental breach of contract. It is up to the employee whether to resign and claim constructive unfair dismissal. - Buckland v Bournemouth University Higher Education Corp [2010] EWCA Civ 121 A worker can not claim constructive dismissal if he is in breach of the duty of trust and confidence - Bateman & Ors v. Asda Stores Ltd [2010] UKEAT 0221_09_1102 A worker can not claim constructive dismissal if he is in breach of the duty of trust and confidence - Aberdeen City Council v McNeill [2009] UKEAT 0037_08_1011 BA dress code forbidding the open display of faith symbols was not discriminatory - Eweida v British Airways Plc [2010] EWCA Civ 80 When deciding whether to allow an amendment the lateness of the application is only one factor to be taken into account by the employment judge - Baker v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis [2010] UKEAT 0201_09_0502 National courts should should strike down discriminatory legislation - Seda Kücükdeveci v Swedex GmbH & Co. KG [2010] ECJCase C-555/07 Judges restrict employers' use of the illegality defence against employee unfair dismissal claims - SAN LING CHINESE MEDICINE CENTRE v LIAN WEI JI - [2010] EAT UKEAT/0370/09/ZT There is a right to legal representation at a disciplinary which might result in the loss of the right to practise a profession - G, R (on the application of) v X School & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 1 Cabin crew spending 5% of their time in the UK were considered to have worked partly at an establishment in Great Britain. - BA v Mak EAT [2010] UKEAT/0055/09/SM The 'genuine occupational requirement' rule may apply to a maximum age for employment - Wolf v Stadt Frankfurt am Main [2010] Case C-229/08 ECJ Different dress codes do not necessarily amount to sex discrimination - Dansie v. The Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis [2009] UKEAT Certain conditions must exist for the obligation to carry out a risk assessment for a pregnant worker to arise - ONeill v. Buckinghamshire County Council [2010] UKEAT 2009 An employment tribunal may decide if a compromise decision is unenforcable - Industrious Ltd v Horizon Recruitment Ltd & Anor [2009] UKEAT Registrar claiming right to refuse to officiate at civil weddings loses religious discrimination case - Ladele v London Borough of Islington [2009] EWCA Civ 1357 A philosophical belief based on science is protected by the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 - Grainger Plc v Nicholson [2009] UKEAT/0219/09/ZT Christian counsellor who would not help same sex couples was not discriminated against - McFarlane v Relate Avon Ltd [2009] UKEAT 0106_09_3011 Under TUPE the obligation to inform always applies, even when no measures are contemplated relating to the transfer - Cable Realisations Ltd v GMB Northern [2009] UKEAT The Court of Appeal rules on Harassment and 'Oppressive and Unacceptable' behaviour Veakins v Kier Islington Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 1288 For s4A(3) of the DDA to apply the employer must have known (or ought to have known) that the employee was disabled and that the disability would affect him in the manner described in section 4A(1) - DWP v Alam [2009] UKEAT 0242_09_0911 A discrimination case may not proceed on the mere possibility that evidence might emerge during cross examination - ABN Amro Management Services v Hogben [2009] UKEAT 0266_09_0111 In cases of discriminatory dismissal tribunals may reduce compensation if the worker would in any event have been dismissed - Chagger v Abbey National Plc & Anor [2009] EWCA Civ 1202 |
|||
| |
|||
|
© 2010 Workrep | |||