In Melbourne v Ministry of Defence the EAT upholds an employment tribunal's decision that it lacked jurisdiction to hear unfair dismissal and race discrimination claims that related to an individual's service in the armed forces.
The moment at which an employee first develops a belief in a right to complain of unfair dismissal, on any ground, does not fix for all time and for all purposes, including any grounds of complaint then still unknown but subsequently discovered, the point of time at which it became "reasonably practicable" for the employee to present a complaint, holds the Court of Appeal in Marley (UK) Ltd and another v Anderson.
An employee who entered into an agreement with his employer to accept a payment "in full and final settlement of any claims" against the employer arising out of his employment or its termination, had effectively compromised any claim for damages for breach of contract and so could not pursue such a claim before an employment tribunal, holds the EAT in Sutherland v Network Appliance Ltd and another.
An employment tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear a complaint of unfair dismissal brought by a sergeant in the British Transport Police, the EAT holds in Spence v British Railways Board.
In holding that the Greek School of London and the Republic of Greece were immune from unfair dismissal proceedings, an employment tribunal misapplied the provisions of the State Immunity Act 1978, holds the EAT in Glinoer and another v The Greek School of London and the Republic of Greece.
Under the State Immunity Act, the United States of America was immune from unfair dismissal proceedings brought by a British former employee at the US embassy in London, holds the EAT in United States of America v Mills. The employee's contract of employment contained words which, at most, amounted to an acknowledgement that his contract was governed by United Kingdom law, but it contained nothing that could be construed as a clear and unequivocal submission by the USA to the jurisdiction of the UK courts under s.2 of the Act.
A driver employed at the Saudi Arabian Embassy in London, whose job involved translating from Arabic to English and vice versa for the benefit of his passengers, was a member of the administrative staff of the mission for the purposes of the State Immunity Act, rules the Court of Appeal in Nasser v The Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
In Harris v Lewisham & Guy's Mental Health Trust, the Court of Appeal holds that a complaint brought under the Race Relations Act 1976 could survive the death of the complainant.
The question as to where an employee who was employed either under a series of separate contracts or a series of variations of a contract "ordinarily worked", had to be answered by looking at the terms applicable during a particular period and at the place where the employee was actually performing his work, holds the Inner House of the Court of Session in Kelvin International Services Ltd v Walker.
In Lewisham & Guys Mental Health NHS Trust v Andrews (26 March 1999) EOR86C, the EAT has ruled that a race discrimination complaint does not survive the death of the applicant.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to the jurisidiction of the employment tribunals and courts.