This week's case round-up from Eversheds, covering: entitlements to PHI benefits; and disability claims.
In Marlow v East Thames Housing Group Ltd, the High Court holds that where an employee is contractually entitled to benefits paid by insurers under a permanent health insurance policy with the employer, the employer is bound to take all reasonable steps to secure those benefits from the insurers. This could, depending on the circumstances, entail pursuing litigation against the insurers.
In Walton v Airtours plc and another, the Court of Appeal holds that an airline pilot who was unable to continue with his job after becoming ill with chronic fatigue syndrome, but was fit to undertake light part-time work with rehabilitation and a programme of support, remained entitled to benefits under the employer's PHI scheme, notwithstanding that those benefits were payable in the long term only if the employee was unable to "follow any occupation".
Recent decisions show that while Permanent Health Insurance is valuable for staff, it can damage your organisation. By Anthony Korn, a barrister at 199 Strand Chambers.
This week's case round-up from Eversheds covers racial discrimination and termination on the grounds of ill health.
In Lommers v Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij (19 March 2002), the European Court of Justice upholds a policy in a Dutch civil service department which offers subsidised childcare places only to female employees. The ECJ says that the scheme does not contravene EU law so long as it is also available on the same conditions to men who are single parents.
In Scott v MPFS (Insurance Services Ltd) a Central London County Court (Judge Hallgarten QC) has ruled that the underwriters of the Metropolitan Police medical insurance fund did not unlawfully discriminate on grounds of sex by reducing benefits payable to women police officers in respect of permanent total disablement to half of those payable to male police officers.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to benefits.