In ABC News Intercontinental Inc v Gizbert EAT/0160/06, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that there was sufficient mutuality of obligation for a contract of employment to exist where an individual had an implied duty to consider in good faith whether to accept or refuse work.
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.
In Allen v National Australia Group Europe Ltd, the EAT holds that the tribunal was wrong to decline jurisdiction to hear a claim under the Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002.
In Fraser v Stolt Offshore Ltd [2003] All ER (D) 185 (Apr) EAT, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that an employer can issue a warning to a fixed-term employee that will be valid for a longer period than the fixed-term contract. The warning will carry over into the next contract and the employee does not have to be notified of this when he accepts the next contract.
In Brown and others v Knowsley Borough Council the EAT upholds an industrial tribunal's ruling that a temporary teacher employed by a local authority on an MSC funded course was engaged under a contract for a specific purpose (ie a contract to last only for so long as was necessary to fulfil its purpose).
When the fixed term contract of a temporary employee expires without being renewed, the test of fairness may be less stringent than would be adopted for an employee whose status was not seen from the start as temporary. This is one of the points to emerge from Gwent County Council v Lane and Terry v East Sussex County Council.