Topics

Redundancy payments

New and updated

  • Unfair dismissal: Upper age limit does not indirectly discriminate against men

    Date:
    22 October 2004
    Type:
    Law reports

    In Rutherford and another v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Court of Appeal holds that an employment tribunal erred in law in holding that the upper age limit default provisions in the Employment Rights Act 1996 relating to unfair dismissal and redundancy payments were indirectly discriminatory against men.

  • Discrimination against over-65s remains lawful

    Date:
    1 October 2004
    Type:
    Law reports

    The Court of Appeal has upheld the EAT's decision that the statutory exclusion from employment rights for over-65s is lawful, in the most recent decision in the long-running case of Rutherford and another v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (formerly against Harvest Town Circle Ltd and others).

  • Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Rutherford

    Date:
    1 January 2004
    Type:
    Law reports

    In Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Rutherford and others [2003] IRLR 858 EAT, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that an employment tribunal had erred in law in holding that the upper age limit default provisions in the Employment Rights Act 1996 relating to unfair dismissal and redundancy payments were indirectly discriminatory against men.

  • Solectron Scotland Ltd v Roper and others

    Date:
    1 January 2004
    Type:
    Law reports

    In Solectron Scotland Ltd v Roper and others [2004] IRLR 4 EAT, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the employment tribunal did not err in finding that enhanced redundancy terms over and above what was paid to the applicants on their dismissal, which formed part of their contracts of employment with their previous employer, BT, and to which they were entitled by virtue of the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations 1981, had not been removed by custom or practice.

  • Upper age limit of 65 lawful

    Date:
    1 December 2003
    Type:
    Law reports

    In Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Rutherford and others (No.2) (2 October 2003), the EAT held that the statutory upper age limit of 65 on the right to claim unfair dismissal and the right to a redundancy payment is not indirectly discriminatory against men.

  • Case round-up

    Date:
    1 November 2003
    Type:
    Law reports

    Our resident experts at Pinsents bring you a comprehensive update on all the latest decisions that could affect your organisation, and advice on what to do about them.

  • Unfair dismissal/ redundancy: Upper age limits for unfair dismissal and redundancy ruled unlawful

    Date:
    7 March 2003
    Type:
    Law reports

    In Rutherford v Towncircle Ltd (t/a Harvest) (in liquidation) and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Bentley v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, an employment tribunal holds that the exclusion of employees aged over 65 from the right to bring a claim for unfair dismissal compensation, or from entitlement to a redundancy payment upon dismissal, is contrary to European law.

  • Case round-up

    Date:
    1 March 2003
    Type:
    Law reports

    Our resident experts at Pinsent Curtis Biddle bring you a comprehensive update on all the latest decisions that could affect your organisation, and advice on what to do about them.

  • Contracts of employment: Contractual entitlement to enhanced redundancy terms arose by custom and practice

    Date:
    10 January 2003
    Type:
    Law reports

    In Albion Automotive Ltd v Walker and others, the Court of Appeal upholds an employment tribunal's decision that an employer who made enhanced redundancy payments according to an agreed policy for a number of years created a custom and practice from which the tribunal could infer that the employer and/or its successors intended to be contractually bound to make those payments.

  • Contracts of employment: Dismissal to avoid contractual redundancy payment was unlawful

    Date:
    10 January 2003
    Type:
    Law reports

    There is an implied term in a contract of employment that, once an employer has determined that an employee will be dismissed by reason of redundancy, in circumstances where his or her dismissal for any other reason will defeat his or her right to enhanced contractual redundancy benefits, the employer may not lawfully dismiss him or her for any reason other than redundancy, except for good cause, the High Court holds in Jenvey v Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

About this topic

HR and legal information and guidance relating to redundancy payments.