All items: Objective justification

• expand

  (1) Duncombe and others (2) Fletcher v Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families [2010] IRLR 331 CA (1 report relating to this case)

  • (1) Duncombe and others (2) Fletcher v Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families

    Date:

    27 January 2010

    The Court of Appeal has held that an employee who was employed under a series of fixed-term contracts and whose contract was terminated could bring a claim of unfair dismissal despite the fact that he was employed to work outside Great Britain. Territorial limitations to unfair dismissal rights should be modified where necessary to enable a right emanating from European law to be enforced.

• expand

  Adeneler and others v Ellinikos Organismos Galaktos [2006] IRLR 716 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Fixed-term employees: Successive fixed-term contracts and objective justification

    Date:

    1 December 2006

    In Adeneler and others v Ellinikos Organismos Galaktos [2006] IRLR 716 the European Court of Justice has held that the objective reasons justifying the use of successive fixed-term contracts must relate to the particular employment in question.

• expand

  Ball v University of Aberdeen ETS/101486/08 (1 report relating to this case)

  • University researcher on three successive fixed-term contracts declared permanent employee

    Date:

    19 August 2010

    An employment tribunal has found that an individual employed on three consecutive fixed-term contracts over almost a decade is a permanent employee, in a case that has significance for employers in sectors that regularly employ staff for a fixed term, such as teaching, IT and construction.

• expand

  Department for Work and Pensions v Webley [2005] IRLR 288 CA (1 report relating to this case)

  • Fixed-term employees: Policy of termination after 51 weeks' service not unlawful

    Date:

    11 February 2005

    In Webley v Department for Work and Pensions, the Court of Appeal holds that an employer's practice of refusing to renew fixed-term employment contracts once 51 weeks of service had elapsed was not unlawful under the Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002.

• expand

  Duncombe & others v Department for Education and Skills EAT/0433/07 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Territorial jurisdiction: Employee working abroad could bring claim in respect of directly effective rights

    Date:

    28 July 2008

    In Duncombe & others v Department for Education and Skills EAT/0433/07, the EAT held that the territorial limits to employment tribunal jurisdiction do not preclude an employee based outside Great Britain pursuing a breach of contract claim that relies on provisions in the fixed-term employees Regulations. The Regulations implemented European legislation, giving directly effective rights that the domestic courts must seek to enforce.

• expand

  Duncombe and others v Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families [2011] IRLR 498 SC (2 reports relating to this case)

  The Supreme Court, the highest court in the UK, disagreed with all the lower courts on this issue. The employment tribunal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal, and the Court of Appeal had all held that the use of successive fixed-term contracts was not objectively justified.

  • Tribunal jurisdiction: Teachers employed abroad by Government can bring unfair dismissal claims in Great Britain

    Date:

    8 November 2011

    In Duncombe and others v Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families [2011] IRLR 498 SC, the Supreme Court held that the employment of teachers seconded to European Schools on successive fixed-term contracts was objectively justified. However, the teachers could bring unfair dismissal claims in Great Britain in respect of the non-renewal of those contracts, even though they worked wholly abroad.

  • Successive fixed-term contracts of nine years not converted into permanent contracts

    Date:

    4 April 2011

    The Supreme Court has held that it was objectively justified to employ teachers on successive fixed-term contracts amounting to nine years in total, and that these contracts were not converted into permanent contracts. 

• expand

  Hall v Xerox UK Ltd EAT/0061/14 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Case round-up

    Date:

    1 December 2014

    David Malamatenios is a partner and Krishna Santra and Colin Makin are senior associates at Colman Coyle Solicitors. They round up the latest rulings.

• expand

  Hudson v Department for Work and Pensions [2012] EWCA Civ 1416 CA (1 report relating to this case)

  • Case round-up

    Date:

    1 February 2013

    Victoria Bell is a managing associate and Chris McAvoy, Poppy Fildes, Rosie Kight and Helen Samuel are associate solicitors at Addleshaw Goddard LLP. They round up the latest rulings.

• expand

  Manchester College v Cocliff EAT/0035/10 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Fixed-term employees: Tribunal erred in considering objective justification before less favourable treatment

    Date:

    24 November 2010

    In Manchester College v Cocliff EAT/0035/10, the EAT held that an employment tribunal erred when it decided that there had been less favourable treatment on grounds of fixed-term status because it had found that any difference in terms was not objectively justifiable. Tribunals should first consider whether or not any less favourable treatment is on grounds of fixed-term status. Only if the answer is yes should they move on to consider the defence of objective justification.

• expand

  Webley v Department for Work and Pensions [2004] All ER (D) 109 (May) EAT (2 reports relating to this case)

  • Case round up

    Date:

    3 February 2005

    Katherine Priestley of Addleshaw Goddard brings you a comprehensive update on the latest decisions that could affect your organisation and provide advice on what to do about them.

  • Case round-up: less favourable treatment of fixed-term staff; and 'rolled-up' holiday pay

    Date:

    18 May 2004

    This week's case round-up from Eversheds covering: less favourable treatment of fixed-term staff and 'rolled-up' holiday pay.