Logo

Archive for February, 2017

No win no fee: naive claimants beware

“No win no fee”

“No win no fee”, in reality, is a grotesque over-simplification which reflects the naïve innocence of clients. It has developed into an impenetrable jungle of regulations and procedures, mostly concerned with insurance premiums and payments. There is also a significant body of case law dealing with CFAs and their insurance implications.

In outline, a solicitor assesses the chance of success in a case and decides on a success fee to be paid on top of normal fees if the claim succeeds.

This includes the cost of an insurance policy to cover costs if the claim fails.

The introduction of CFAs is another example of the commercialisation of legal practice. CFAs make it less likely that poor claimants with cases which are not overwhelmingly likely to succeed will be able to find professional representation. Claims with a significant risk of failure are not taken on.


Workplace death from hydraulic cylinder: £800,000 fine

Death of worker: construction hire equipment hire company fined £800,000

Health and Safety Executive v AGD Equipment Ltd (2017) Warwick Crown Court, February 10

Statutory reference: s. 3 of the Health and Safety at Work, Etc., Act 1974 (HSWA), regulation 12, Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER) and regulation 3, Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (MHSWR).

AGD Equipment Ltd, a construction hire equipment company, has been fined following the death of a worker.

The facts

·        Mark Seward was testing a hydraulic cylinder when it cracked under pressure. A piece of metal struck him on the head, causing fatal injuries.

·        The company had failed to have adequate supervision in place for the work. It had also failed to inform him of the safe working pressure for the cylinder.

·        The company had also failed to have protective screens in place to prevent projectiles from striking staff and had not excluded other people from the test area.

The decision

The company was fined a total of £800,000 plus £28,000 costs under s.3 HSWA, regulation 12 of PUWER and regulation 3 of MHSWR.

An HSE inspector commented after the case that it was a company’s obligation to provide a safe system of work for leak testing. This included protecting people from flying fragments and high pressure oil leaks as well as providing thorough training in how to carry out the work safely.  


Workplace forklift truck injury: suspended prison sentences

Forklift incident: serious injuries: suspended sentences for employers [remove for online]

Health and Safety Executive v Maurice James Blackford and Susan Hawthorne (2017) Worcester magistrates’ court, February 2

Statutory reference:  s.2 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc., Act 1974 (HSWA)

The owners of a fencing company have received suspended prison sentences following an incident in which a worker suffered serious injuries.

The facts

·        In February 2016 Raymond Lansbury, an employee of the company, was helping to dip timber posts and frames in preservative. The timber fell from a metal frame of a forklift truck and struck him. He suffered serious injuries and still requires physiotherapy treatment.

·        The company had not been using suitable equipment for the work. the forklift truck operator had not been properly trained and the vehicle had not been thoroughly examined up to required standards.

The decision

Blackford and Hawthorne were each fined £10,000 and sentenced to 18 weeks imprisonment suspended for two years, plus a total of £4300 costs for breaches of s. 2 HSWA for failing to ensure the health and safety of employees.


Workplace death fall: company fined £600,000Fall death: £600,000 fine [remove for online] Health and Safety Executive v Go Ahead London (2017) Southwark Crown Court, February 14 Statutory reference: s.3 of the Health and Safety at Work, ertc., Act 1974 (HSWA). Go Ahead London, a bus company, has been fined after a worker suffered fatal fall injuries. The facts • In May 2011 a worker was using a ladder to access the top of a fuel tank. He fell two and a half metres and suffered fatal injuries. • The company did not implement and keep to its own procedures for managing contractors. As a result it failed to manage contractors effectively or to ensure that they worked in a safe manner. The decision The company was fined £600,000 plus £78,000 costs under s.3 HSWA for failing to ensure the health and safety of non-employees. An HSE inspector commented after the case that the case had been entirely preventable.

Fall death: £600,000 fine

Health and Safety Executive v Go Ahead London (2017) Southwark Crown Court, February 14

Statutory reference: s.3 of the Health and Safety at Work, ertc., Act 1974 (HSWA).

Go Ahead London, a bus company, has been fined after a worker suffered fatal fall injuries.

The facts

·        In May 2011 a worker was using a ladder to access the top of a fuel tank. He fell two and a half metres and suffered fatal injuries.

·        The company did not implement and keep to its own procedures for managing contractors. As a result it failed to manage contractors effectively or to ensure that they worked in a safe manner.

The decision

The company was fined £600,000 plus £78,000 costs under s.3 HSWA for failing to ensure the health and safety of non-employees.

An HSE inspector commented after the case that the case had been entirely preventable.


Unfair dismissal: issues not raised by claimant

UNFAIR DISMISSAL

Issues not raised in claim form

Case  Perry’s Motor Sales Ltd v Edwards (2017) Morning Star, February 17, EAT

Facts E was given a first and final written warning in May 2014 after he was found guilty of tampering with company paperwork. Some months later he submitted a false claim for work done on a car. He admitted the offence. He did not gain individually from either offence. He was dismissed for breaches of trust and confidence. He complained of unfair dismissal. The ET upheld the complaint, finding that the first written warning had been outside the band of reasonable responses, that the employer had not carried out a reasonable investigation and the situation would not have arisen if the employer had provided E with training and support on its procedures. The employer appealed to the EAT.

Decision      1. The appeal was allowed.

2. E had not raised the issue of the validity of the first warning. The tribunal had taken it upon itself to look behind it.

3. It had been an error of law for the tribunal to decide a point which it had not been asked to consider.

4. By putting the issue of the warning at the heart of its considerations, the tribunal had failed to consider the fairness of the dismissal against the existence of a valid final written warning. The matter was remitted to a different tribunal for rehearing.


Unfair dismissal: automatic: confidential information:trade union purposesUNFAIR DISMISSAL Automatically unfair Trade union purposes Case Metrolink RATPDEV v Morris UKEAT/0113/16/RN Facts M, a union representative, was dismissed because his employer believed that he had obtained and shared sensitive company information. He complained of unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been automatically unfair. M had acted in the capacity of union representative, storing and sharing the information because of concerns raised with him by members. M had referred to the information in a collective grievance letter. The employer appealed to the EAT. Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. 2. The employment judge had not considered the real issues in the case. She had failed to consider whether a dismissal for the wrongful or unlawful retention of confidential information for trade union purposes enjoyed the protection of section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 152 states, in summary, that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee for joining or not joining a union, taking part in its activities, using its services or refusing to accept an inducement. UNFAIR DISMISSAL Automatically unfair Trade union purposes Case Metrolink RATPDEV v Morris UKEAT/0113/16/RN Facts M, a union representative, was dismissed because his employer believed that he had obtained and shared sensitive company information. He complained of unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been automatically unfair. M had acted in the capacity of union representative, storing and sharing the information because of concerns raised with him by members. M had referred to the information in a collective grievance letter. The employer appealed to the EAT. Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. 2. The employment judge had not considered the real issues in the case. She had failed to consider whether a dismissal for the wrongful or unlawful retention of confidential information for trade union purposes enjoyed the protection of section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 152 states, in summary, that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee for joining or not joining a union, taking part in its activities, using its services or refusing to accept an inducement. UNFAIR DISMISSAL Automatically unfair Trade union purposes Case Metrolink RATPDEV v Morris UKEAT/0113/16/RN Facts M, a union representative, was dismissed because his employer believed that he had obtained and shared sensitive company information. He complained of unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been automatically unfair. M had acted in the capacity of union representative, storing and sharing the information because of concerns raised with him by members. M had referred to the information in a collective grievance letter. The employer appealed to the EAT. Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. 2. The employment judge had not considered the real issues in the case. She had failed to consider whether a dismissal for the wrongful or unlawful retention of confidential information for trade union purposes enjoyed the protection of section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 152 states, in summary, that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee for joining or not joining a union, taking part in its activities, using its services or refusing to accept an inducement. UNFAIR DISMISSAL Automatically unfair Trade union purposes Case Metrolink RATPDEV v Morris UKEAT/0113/16/RN Facts M, a union representative, was dismissed because his employer believed that he had obtained and shared sensitive company information. He complained of unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been automatically unfair. M had acted in the capacity of union representative, storing and sharing the information because of concerns raised with him by members. M had referred to the information in a collective grievance letter. The employer appealed to the EAT. Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. 2. The employment judge had not considered the real issues in the case. She had failed to consider whether a dismissal for the wrongful or unlawful retention of confidential information for trade union purposes enjoyed the protection of section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 152 states, in summary, that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee for joining or not joining a union, taking part in its activities, using its services or refusing to accept an inducement. UNFAIR DISMISSAL Automatically unfair Trade union purposes Case Metrolink RATPDEV v Morris UKEAT/0113/16/RN Facts M, a union representative, was dismissed because his employer believed that he had obtained and shared sensitive company information. He complained of unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been automatically unfair. M had acted in the capacity of union representative, storing and sharing the information because of concerns raised with him by members. M had referred to the information in a collective grievance letter. The employer appealed to the EAT. Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. 2. The employment judge had not considered the real issues in the case. She had failed to consider whether a dismissal for the wrongful or unlawful retention of confidential information for trade union purposes enjoyed the protection of section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 152 states, in summary, that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee for joining or not joining a union, taking part in its activities, using its services or refusing to accept an inducement. UNFAIR DISMISSAL Automatically unfair Trade union purposes Case Metrolink RATPDEV v Morris UKEAT/0113/16/RN Facts M, a union representative, was dismissed because his employer believed that he had obtained and shared sensitive company information. He complained of unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been automatically unfair. M had acted in the capacity of union representative, storing and sharing the information because of concerns raised with him by members. M had referred to the information in a collective grievance letter. The employer appealed to the EAT. Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. 2. The employment judge had not considered the real issues in the case. She had failed to consider whether a dismissal for the wrongful or unlawful retention of confidential information for trade union purposes enjoyed the protection of section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 152 states, in summary, that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee for joining or not joining a union, taking part in its activities, using its services or refusing to accept an inducement. UNFAIR DISMISSAL Automatically unfair Trade union purposes Case Metrolink RATPDEV v Morris UKEAT/0113/16/RN Facts M, a union representative, was dismissed because his employer believed that he had obtained and shared sensitive company information. He complained of unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been automatically unfair. M had acted in the capacity of union representative, storing and sharing the information because of concerns raised with him by members. M had referred to the information in a collective grievance letter. The employer appealed to the EAT. Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. 2. The employment judge had not considered the real issues in the case. She had failed to consider whether a dismissal for the wrongful or unlawful retention of confidential information for trade union purposes enjoyed the protection of section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 152 states, in summary, that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee for joining or not joining a union, taking part in its activities, using its services or refusing to accept an inducement. UNFAIR DISMISSAL Automatically unfair Trade union purposes Case Metrolink RATPDEV v Morris UKEAT/0113/16/RN Facts M, a union representative, was dismissed because his employer believed that he had obtained and shared sensitive company information. He complained of unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been automatically unfair. M had acted in the capacity of union representative, storing and sharing the information because of concerns raised with him by members. M had referred to the information in a collective grievance letter. The employer appealed to the EAT. Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. 2. The employment judge had not considered the real issues in the case. She had failed to consider whether a dismissal for the wrongful or unlawful retention of confidential information for trade union purposes enjoyed the protection of section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 152 states, in summary, that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee for joining or not joining a union, taking part in its activities, using its services or refusing to accept an inducement. UNFAIR DISMISSAL Automatically unfair Trade union purposes Case Metrolink RATPDEV v Morris UKEAT/0113/16/RN Facts M, a union representative, was dismissed because his employer believed that he had obtained and shared sensitive company information. He complained of unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been automatically unfair. M had acted in the capacity of union representative, storing and sharing the information because of concerns raised with him by members. M had referred to the information in a collective grievance letter. The employer appealed to the EAT. Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. 2. The employment judge had not considered the real issues in the case. She had failed to consider whether a dismissal for the wrongful or unlawful retention of confidential information for trade union purposes enjoyed the protection of section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 152 states, in summary, that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee for joining or not joining a union, taking part in its activities, using its services or refusing to accept an inducement. UNFAIR DISMISSAL Automatically unfair Trade union purposes Case Metrolink RATPDEV v Morris UKEAT/0113/16/RN Facts M, a union representative, was dismissed because his employer believed that he had obtained and shared sensitive company information. He complained of unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been automatically unfair. M had acted in the capacity of union representative, storing and sharing the information because of concerns raised with him by members. M had referred to the information in a collective grievance letter. The employer appealed to the EAT. Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. 2. The employment judge had not considered the real issues in the case. She had failed to consider whether a dismissal for the wrongful or unlawful retention of confidential information for trade union purposes enjoyed the protection of section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 152 states, in summary, that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee for joining or not joining a union, taking part in its activities, using its services or refusing to accept an inducement. UNFAIR DISMISSAL Automatically unfair Trade union purposes Case Metrolink RATPDEV v Morris UKEAT/0113/16/RN Facts M, a union representative, was dismissed because his employer believed that he had obtained and shared sensitive company information. He complained of unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been automatically unfair. M had acted in the capacity of union representative, storing and sharing the information because of concerns raised with him by members. M had referred to the information in a collective grievance letter. The employer appealed to the EAT. Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. 2. The employment judge had not considered the real issues in the case. She had failed to consider whether a dismissal for the wrongful or unlawful retention of confidential information for trade union purposes enjoyed the protection of section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 152 states, in summary, that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee for joining or not joining a union, taking part in its activities, using its services or refusing to accept an inducement. UNFAIR DISMISSAL Automatically unfair Trade union purposes Case Metrolink RATPDEV v Morris UKEAT/0113/16/RN Facts M, a union representative, was dismissed because his employer believed that he had obtained and shared sensitive company information. He complained of unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been automatically unfair. M had acted in the capacity of union representative, storing and sharing the information because of concerns raised with him by members. M had referred to the information in a collective grievance letter. The employer appealed to the EAT. Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. 2. The employment judge had not considered the real issues in the case. She had failed to consider whether a dismissal for the wrongful or unlawful retention of confidential information for trade union purposes enjoyed the protection of section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 152 states, in summary, that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee for joining or not joining a union, taking part in its activities, using its services or refusing to accept an inducement. UNFAIR DISMISSAL Automatically unfair Trade union purposes Case Metrolink RATPDEV v Morris UKEAT/0113/16/RN Facts M, a union representative, was dismissed because his employer believed that he had obtained and shared sensitive company information. He complained of unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been automatically unfair. M had acted in the capacity of union representative, storing and sharing the information because of concerns raised with him by members. M had referred to the information in a collective grievance letter. The employer appealed to the EAT. Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. 2. The employment judge had not considered the real issues in the case. She had failed to consider whether a dismissal for the wrongful or unlawful retention of confidential information for trade union purposes enjoyed the protection of section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 152 states, in summary, that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee for joining or not joining a union, taking part in its activities, using its services or refusing to accept an inducement. UNFAIR DISMISSAL Automatically unfair Trade union purposes Case Metrolink RATPDEV v Morris UKEAT/0113/16/RN Facts M, a union representative, was dismissed because his employer believed that he had obtained and shared sensitive company information. He complained of unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been automatically unfair. M had acted in the capacity of union representative, storing and sharing the information because of concerns raised with him by members. M had referred to the information in a collective grievance letter. The employer appealed to the EAT. Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. 2. The employment judge had not considered the real issues in the case. She had failed to consider whether a dismissal for the wrongful or unlawful retention of confidential information for trade union purposes enjoyed the protection of section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 152 states, in summary, that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee for joining or not joining a union, taking part in its activities, using its services or refusing to accept an inducement. UNFAIR DISMISSAL Automatically unfair Trade union purposes Case Metrolink RATPDEV v Morris UKEAT/0113/16/RN Facts M, a union representative, was dismissed because his employer believed that he had obtained and shared sensitive company information. He complained of unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been automatically unfair. M had acted in the capacity of union representative, storing and sharing the information because of concerns raised with him by members. M had referred to the information in a collective grievance letter. The employer appealed to the EAT. Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. 2. The employment judge had not considered the real issues in the case. She had failed to consider whether a dismissal for the wrongful or unlawful retention of confidential information for trade union purposes enjoyed the protection of section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 152 states, in summary, that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee for joining or not joining a union, taking part in its activities, using its services or refusing to accept an inducement. UNFAIR DISMISSAL Automatically unfair Trade union purposes Case Metrolink RATPDEV v Morris UKEAT/0113/16/RN Facts M, a union representative, was dismissed because his employer believed that he had obtained and shared sensitive company information. He complained of unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been automatically unfair. M had acted in the capacity of union representative, storing and sharing the information because of concerns raised with him by members. M had referred to the information in a collective grievance letter. The employer appealed to the EAT. Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. 2. The employment judge had not considered the real issues in the case. She had failed to consider whether a dismissal for the wrongful or unlawful retention of confidential information for trade union purposes enjoyed the protection of section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 152 states, in summary, that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee for joining or not joining a union, taking part in its activities, using its services or refusing to accept an inducement. UNFAIR DISMISSAL Automatically unfair Trade union purposes Case Metrolink RATPDEV v Morris UKEAT/0113/16/RN Facts M, a union representative, was dismissed because his employer believed that he had obtained and shared sensitive company information. He complained of unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been automatically unfair. M had acted in the capacity of union representative, storing and sharing the information because of concerns raised with him by members. M had referred to the information in a collective grievance letter. The employer appealed to the EAT. Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. 2. The employment judge had not considered the real issues in the case. She had failed to consider whether a dismissal for the wrongful or unlawful retention of confidential information for trade union purposes enjoyed the protection of section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 152 states, in summary, that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee for joining or not joining a union, taking part in its activities, using its services or refusing to accept an inducement. UNFAIR DISMISSAL Automatically unfair Trade union purposes Case Metrolink RATPDEV v Morris UKEAT/0113/16/RN Facts M, a union representative, was dismissed because his employer believed that he had obtained and shared sensitive company information. He complained of unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been automatically unfair. M had acted in the capacity of union representative, storing and sharing the information because of concerns raised with him by members. M had referred to the information in a collective grievance letter. The employer appealed to the EAT. Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. 2. The employment judge had not considered the real issues in the case. She had failed to consider whether a dismissal for the wrongful or unlawful retention of confidential information for trade union purposes enjoyed the protection of section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 152 states, in summary, that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee for joining or not joining a union, taking part in its activities, using its services or refusing to accept an inducement. UNFAIR DISMISSAL Automatically unfair Trade union purposes Case Metrolink RATPDEV v Morris UKEAT/0113/16/RN Facts M, a union representative, was dismissed because his employer believed that he had obtained and shared sensitive company information. He complained of unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been automatically unfair. M had acted in the capacity of union representative, storing and sharing the information because of concerns raised with him by members. M had referred to the information in a collective grievance letter. The employer appealed to the EAT. Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. 2. The employment judge had not considered the real issues in the case. She had failed to consider whether a dismissal for the wrongful or unlawful retention of confidential information for trade union purposes enjoyed the protection of section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 152 states, in summary, that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee for joining or not joining a union, taking part in its activities, using its services or refusing to accept an inducement. UNFAIR DISMISSAL Automatically unfair Trade union purposes Case Metrolink RATPDEV v Morris UKEAT/0113/16/RN Facts M, a union representative, was dismissed because his employer believed that he had obtained and shared sensitive company information. He complained of unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been automatically unfair. M had acted in the capacity of union representative, storing and sharing the information because of concerns raised with him by members. M had referred to the information in a collective grievance letter. The employer appealed to the EAT. Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. 2. The employment judge had not considered the real issues in the case. She had failed to consider whether a dismissal for the wrongful or unlawful retention of confidential information for trade union purposes enjoyed the protection of section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 152 states, in summary, that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee for joining or not joining a union, taking part in its activities, using its services or refusing to accept an inducement. UNFAIR DISMISSAL Automatically unfair Trade union purposes Case Metrolink RATPDEV v Morris UKEAT/0113/16/RN Facts M, a union representative, was dismissed because his employer believed that he had obtained and shared sensitive company information. He complained of unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been automatically unfair. M had acted in the capacity of union representative, storing and sharing the information because of concerns raised with him by members. M had referred to the information in a collective grievance letter. The employer appealed to the EAT. Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. 2. The employment judge had not considered the real issues in the case. She had failed to consider whether a dismissal for the wrongful or unlawful retention of confidential information for trade union purposes enjoyed the protection of section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 152 states, in summary, that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee for joining or not joining a union, taking part in its activities, using its services or refusing to accept an inducement. UNFAIR DISMISSAL Automatically unfair Trade union purposes Case Metrolink RATPDEV v Morris UKEAT/0113/16/RN Facts M, a union representative, was dismissed because his employer believed that he had obtained and shared sensitive company information. He complained of unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been automatically unfair. M had acted in the capacity of union representative, storing and sharing the information because of concerns raised with him by members. M had referred to the information in a collective grievance letter. The employer appealed to the EAT. Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. 2. The employment judge had not considered the real issues in the case. She had failed to consider whether a dismissal for the wrongful or unlawful retention of confidential information for trade union purposes enjoyed the protection of section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 152 states, in summary, that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee for joining or not joining a union, taking part in its activities, using its services or refusing to accept an inducement. UNFAIR DISMISSAL Automatically unfair Trade union purposes Case Metrolink RATPDEV v Morris UKEAT/0113/16/RN Facts M, a union representative, was dismissed because his employer believed that he had obtained and shared sensitive company information. He complained of unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been automatically unfair. M had acted in the capacity of union representative, storing and sharing the information because of concerns raised with him by members. M had referred to the information in a collective grievance letter. The employer appealed to the EAT. Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. 2. The employment judge had not considered the real issues in the case. She had failed to consider whether a dismissal for the wrongful or unlawful retention of confidential information for trade union purposes enjoyed the protection of section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 152 states, in summary, that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee for joining or not joining a union, taking part in its activities, using its services or refusing to accept an inducement. UNFAIR DISMISSAL Automatically unfair Trade union purposes Case Metrolink RATPDEV v Morris UKEAT/0113/16/RN Facts M, a union representative, was dismissed because his employer believed that he had obtained and shared sensitive company information. He complained of unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been automatically unfair. M had acted in the capacity of union representative, storing and sharing the information because of concerns raised with him by members. M had referred to the information in a collective grievance letter. The employer appealed to the EAT. Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. 2. The employment judge had not considered the real issues in the case. She had failed to consider whether a dismissal for the wrongful or unlawful retention of confidential information for trade union purposes enjoyed the protection of section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 152 states, in summary, that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee for joining or not joining a union, taking part in its activities, using its services or refusing to accept an inducement. UNFAIR DISMISSAL Automatically unfair Trade union purposes Case Metrolink RATPDEV v Morris UKEAT/0113/16/RN Facts M, a union representative, was dismissed because his employer believed that he had obtained and shared sensitive company information. He complained of unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been automatically unfair. M had acted in the capacity of union representative, storing and sharing the information because of concerns raised with him by members. M had referred to the information in a collective grievance letter. The employer appealed to the EAT. Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. 2. The employment judge had not considered the real issues in the case. She had failed to consider whether a dismissal for the wrongful or unlawful retention of confidential information for trade union purposes enjoyed the protection of section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 152 states, in summary, that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee for joining or not joining a union, taking part in its activities, using its services or refusing to accept an inducement. UNFAIR DISMISSAL Automatically unfair Trade union purposes Case Metrolink RATPDEV v Morris UKEAT/0113/16/RN Facts M, a union representative, was dismissed because his employer believed that he had obtained and shared sensitive company information. He complained of unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been automatically unfair. M had acted in the capacity of union representative, storing and sharing the information because of concerns raised with him by members. M had referred to the information in a collective grievance letter. The employer appealed to the EAT. Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. 2. The employment judge had not considered the real issues in the case. She had failed to consider whether a dismissal for the wrongful or unlawful retention of confidential information for trade union purposes enjoyed the protection of section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 152 states, in summary, that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee for joining or not joining a union, taking part in its activities, using its services or refusing to accept an inducement. UNFAIR DISMISSAL Automatically unfair Trade union purposes Case Metrolink RATPDEV v Morris UKEAT/0113/16/RN Facts M, a union representative, was dismissed because his employer believed that he had obtained and shared sensitive company information. He complained of unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been automatically unfair. M had acted in the capacity of union representative, storing and sharing the information because of concerns raised with him by members. M had referred to the information in a collective grievance letter. The employer appealed to the EAT. Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. 2. The employment judge had not considered the real issues in the case. She had failed to consider whether a dismissal for the wrongful or unlawful retention of confidential information for trade union purposes enjoyed the protection of section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 152 states, in summary, that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee for joining or not joining a union, taking part in its activities, using its services or refusing to accept an inducement. UNFAIR DISMISSAL Automatically unfair Trade union purposes Case Metrolink RATPDEV v Morris UKEAT/0113/16/RN Facts M, a union representative, was dismissed because his employer believed that he had obtained and shared sensitive company information. He complained of unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been automatically unfair. M had acted in the capacity of union representative, storing and sharing the information because of concerns raised with him by members. M had referred to the information in a collective grievance letter. The employer appealed to the EAT. Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. 2. The employment judge had not considered the real issues in the case. She had failed to consider whether a dismissal for the wrongful or unlawful retention of confidential information for trade union purposes enjoyed the protection of section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 152 states, in summary, that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee for joining or not joining a union, taking part in its activities, using its services or refusing to accept an inducement. UNFAIR DISMISSAL Automatically unfair Trade union purposes Case Metrolink RATPDEV v Morris UKEAT/0113/16/RN Facts M, a union representative, was dismissed because his employer believed that he had obtained and shared sensitive company information. He complained of unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been automatically unfair. M had acted in the capacity of union representative, storing and sharing the information because of concerns raised with him by members. M had referred to the information in a collective grievance letter. The employer appealed to the EAT. Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. 2. The employment judge had not considered the real issues in the case. She had failed to consider whether a dismissal for the wrongful or unlawful retention of confidential information for trade union purposes enjoyed the protection of section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 152 states, in summary, that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee for joining or not joining a union, taking part in its activities, using its services or refusing to accept an inducement. UNFAIR DISMISSAL Automatically unfair Trade union purposes Case Metrolink RATPDEV v Morris UKEAT/0113/16/RN Facts M, a union representative, was dismissed because his employer believed that he had obtained and shared sensitive company information. He complained of unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been automatically unfair. M had acted in the capacity of union representative, storing and sharing the information because of concerns raised with him by members. M had referred to the information in a collective grievance letter. The employer appealed to the EAT. Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. 2. The employment judge had not considered the real issues in the case. She had failed to consider whether a dismissal for the wrongful or unlawful retention of confidential information for trade union purposes enjoyed the protection of section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 152 states, in summary, that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee for joining or not joining a union, taking part in its activities, using its services or refusing to accept an inducement. UNFAIR DISMISSAL Automatically unfair Trade union purposes Case Metrolink RATPDEV v Morris UKEAT/0113/16/RN Facts M, a union representative, was dismissed because his employer believed that he had obtained and shared sensitive company information. He complained of unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been automatically unfair. M had acted in the capacity of union representative, storing and sharing the information because of concerns raised with him by members. M had referred to the information in a collective grievance letter. The employer appealed to the EAT. Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. 2. The employment judge had not considered the real issues in the case. She had failed to consider whether a dismissal for the wrongful or unlawful retention of confidential information for trade union purposes enjoyed the protection of section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 152 states, in summary, that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee for joining or not joining a union, taking part in its activities, using its services or refusing to accept an inducement. UNFAIR DISMISSAL Automatically unfair Trade union purposes Case Metrolink RATPDEV v Morris UKEAT/0113/16/RN Facts M, a union representative, was dismissed because his employer believed that he had obtained and shared sensitive company information. He complained of unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been automatically unfair. M had acted in the capacity of union representative, storing and sharing the information because of concerns raised with him by members. M had referred to the information in a collective grievance letter. The employer appealed to the EAT. Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. 2. The employment judge had not considered the real issues in the case. She had failed to consider whether a dismissal for the wrongful or unlawful retention of confidential information for trade union purposes enjoyed the protection of section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 152 states, in summary, that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee for joining or not joining a union, taking part in its activities, using its services or refusing to accept an inducement. UNFAIR DISMISSAL Automatically unfair Trade union purposes Case Metrolink RATPDEV v Morris UKEAT/0113/16/RN Facts M, a union representative, was dismissed because his employer believed that he had obtained and shared sensitive company information. He complained of unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been automatically unfair. M had acted in the capacity of union representative, storing and sharing the information because of concerns raised with him by members. M had referred to the information in a collective grievance letter. The employer appealed to the EAT. Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. 2. The employment judge had not considered the real issues in the case. She had failed to consider whether a dismissal for the wrongful or unlawful retention of confidential information for trade union purposes enjoyed the protection of section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 152 states, in summary, that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee for joining or not joining a union, taking part in its activities, using its services or refusing to accept an inducement. UNFAIR DISMISSAL Automatically unfair Trade union purposes Case Metrolink RATPDEV v Morris UKEAT/0113/16/RN Facts M, a union representative, was dismissed because his employer believed that he had obtained and shared sensitive company information. He complained of unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been automatically unfair. M had acted in the capacity of union representative, storing and sharing the information because of concerns raised with him by members. M had referred to the information in a collective grievance letter. The employer appealed to the EAT. Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. 2. The employment judge had not considered the real issues in the case. She had failed to consider whether a dismissal for the wrongful or unlawful retention of confidential information for trade union purposes enjoyed the protection of section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 152 states, in summary, that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee for joining or not joining a union, taking part in its activities, using its services or refusing to accept an inducement. UNFAIR DISMISSAL Automatically unfair Trade union purposes Case Metrolink RATPDEV v Morris UKEAT/0113/16/RN Facts M, a union representative, was dismissed because his employer believed that he had obtained and shared sensitive company information. He complained of unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been automatically unfair. M had acted in the capacity of union representative, storing and sharing the information because of concerns raised with him by members. M had referred to the information in a collective grievance letter. The employer appealed to the EAT. Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. 2. The employment judge had not considered the real issues in the case. She had failed to consider whether a dismissal for the wrongful or unlawful retention of confidential information for trade union purposes enjoyed the protection of section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 152 states, in summary, that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee for joining or not joining a union, taking part in its activities, using its services or refusing to accept an inducement. UNFAIR DISMISSAL Automatically unfair Trade union purposes Case Metrolink RATPDEV v Morris UKEAT/0113/16/RN Facts M, a union representative, was dismissed because his employer believed that he had obtained and shared sensitive company information. He complained of unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been automatically unfair. M had acted in the capacity of union representative, storing and sharing the information because of concerns raised with him by members. M had referred to the information in a collective grievance letter. The employer appealed to the EAT. Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. 2. The employment judge had not considered the real issues in the case. She had failed to consider whether a dismissal for the wrongful or unlawful retention of confidential information for trade union purposes enjoyed the protection of section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 152 states, in summary, that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee for joining or not joining a union, taking part in its activities, using its services or refusing to accept an inducement. UNFAIR DISMISSAL Automatically unfair Trade union purposes Case Metrolink RATPDEV v Morris UKEAT/0113/16/RN Facts M, a union representative, was dismissed because his employer believed that he had obtained and shared sensitive company information. He complained of unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been automatically unfair. M had acted in the capacity of union representative, storing and sharing the information because of concerns raised with him by members. M had referred to the information in a collective grievance letter. The employer appealed to the EAT. Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. 2. The employment judge had not considered the real issues in the case. She had failed to consider whether a dismissal for the wrongful or unlawful retention of confidential information for trade union purposes enjoyed the protection of section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 152 states, in summary, that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee for joining or not joining a union, taking part in its activities, using its services or refusing to accept an inducement. UNFAIR DISMISSAL Automatically unfair Trade union purposes Case Metrolink RATPDEV v Morris UKEAT/0113/16/RN Facts M, a union representative, was dismissed because his employer believed that he had obtained and shared sensitive company information. He complained of unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been automatically unfair. M had acted in the capacity of union representative, storing and sharing the information because of concerns raised with him by members. M had referred to the information in a collective grievance letter. The employer appealed to the EAT. Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. 2. The employment judge had not considered the real issues in the case. She had failed to consider whether a dismissal for the wrongful or unlawful retention of confidential information for trade union purposes enjoyed the protection of section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 152 states, in summary, that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee for joining or not joining a union, taking part in its activities, using its services or refusing to accept an inducement. UNFAIR DISMISSAL Automatically unfair Trade union purposes Case Metrolink RATPDEV v Morris UKEAT/0113/16/RN Facts M, a union representative, was dismissed because his employer believed that he had obtained and shared sensitive company information. He complained of unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been automatically unfair. M had acted in the capacity of union representative, storing and sharing the information because of concerns raised with him by members. M had referred to the information in a collective grievance letter. The employer appealed to the EAT. Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. 2. The employment judge had not considered the real issues in the case. She had failed to consider whether a dismissal for the wrongful or unlawful retention of confidential information for trade union purposes enjoyed the protection of section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 152 states, in summary, that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee for joining or not joining a union, taking part in its activities, using its services or refusing to accept an inducement. UNFAIR DISMISSAL Automatically unfair Trade union purposes Case Metrolink RATPDEV v Morris UKEAT/0113/16/RN Facts M, a union representative, was dismissed because his employer believed that he had obtained and shared sensitive company information. He complained of unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been automatically unfair. M had acted in the capacity of union representative, storing and sharing the information because of concerns raised with him by members. M had referred to the information in a collective grievance letter. The employer appealed to the EAT. Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. 2. The employment judge had not considered the real issues in the case. She had failed to consider whether a dismissal for the wrongful or unlawful retention of confidential information for trade union purposes enjoyed the protection of section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 152 states, in summary, that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee for joining or not joining a union, taking part in its activities, using its services or refusing to accept an inducement. UNFAIR DISMISSAL Automatically unfair Trade union purposes Case Metrolink RATPDEV v Morris UKEAT/0113/16/RN Facts M, a union representative, was dismissed because his employer believed that he had obtained and shared sensitive company information. He complained of unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been automatically unfair. M had acted in the capacity of union representative, storing and sharing the information because of concerns raised with him by members. M had referred to the information in a collective grievance letter. The employer appealed to the EAT. Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. 2. The employment judge had not considered the real issues in the case. She had failed to consider whether a dismissal for the wrongful or unlawful retention of confidential information for trade union purposes enjoyed the protection of section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 152 states, in summary, that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee for joining or not joining a union, taking part in its activities, using its services or refusing to accept an inducement. UNFAIR DISMISSAL Automatically unfair Trade union purposes Case Metrolink RATPDEV v Morris UKEAT/0113/16/RN Facts M, a union representative, was dismissed because his employer believed that he had obtained and shared sensitive company information. He complained of unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been automatically unfair. M had acted in the capacity of union representative, storing and sharing the information because of concerns raised with him by members. M had referred to the information in a collective grievance letter. The employer appealed to the EAT. Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. 2. The employment judge had not considered the real issues in the case. She had failed to consider whether a dismissal for the wrongful or unlawful retention of confidential information for trade union purposes enjoyed the protection of section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 152 states, in summary, that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee for joining or not joining a union, taking part in its activities, using its services or refusing to accept an inducement. UNFAIR DISMISSAL Automatically unfair Trade union purposes Case Metrolink RATPDEV v Morris UKEAT/0113/16/RN Facts M, a union representative, was dismissed because his employer believed that he had obtained and shared sensitive company information. He complained of unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been automatically unfair. M had acted in the capacity of union representative, storing and sharing the information because of concerns raised with him by members. M had referred to the information in a collective grievance letter. The employer appealed to the EAT. Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. 2. The employment judge had not considered the real issues in the case. She had failed to consider whether a dismissal for the wrongful or unlawful retention of confidential information for trade union purposes enjoyed the protection of section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 152 states, in summary, that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee for joining or not joining a union, taking part in its activities, using its services or refusing to accept an inducement. UNFAIR DISMISSAL Automatically unfair Trade union purposes Case Metrolink RATPDEV v Morris UKEAT/0113/16/RN Facts M, a union representative, was dismissed because his employer believed that he had obtained and shared sensitive company information. He complained of unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been automatically unfair. M had acted in the capacity of union representative, storing and sharing the information because of concerns raised with him by members. M had referred to the information in a collective grievance letter. The employer appealed to the EAT. Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. 2. The employment judge had not considered the real issues in the case. She had failed to consider whether a dismissal for the wrongful or unlawful retention of confidential information for trade union purposes enjoyed the protection of section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 152 states, in summary, that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee for joining or not joining a union, taking part in its activities, using its services or refusing to accept an inducement. UNFAIR DISMISSAL Automatically unfair Trade union purposes Case Metrolink RATPDEV v Morris UKEAT/0113/16/RN Facts M, a union representative, was dismissed because his employer believed that he had obtained and shared sensitive company information. He complained of unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been automatically unfair. M had acted in the capacity of union representative, storing and sharing the information because of concerns raised with him by members. M had referred to the information in a collective grievance letter. The employer appealed to the EAT. Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. 2. The employment judge had not considered the real issues in the case. She had failed to consider whether a dismissal for the wrongful or unlawful retention of confidential information for trade union purposes enjoyed the protection of section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 152 states, in summary, that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee for joining or not joining a union, taking part in its activities, using its services or refusing to accept an inducement. UNFAIR DISMISSAL Automatically unfair Trade union purposes Case Metrolink RATPDEV v Morris UKEAT/0113/16/RN Facts M, a union representative, was dismissed because his employer believed that he had obtained and shared sensitive company information. He complained of unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been automatically unfair. M had acted in the capacity of union representative, storing and sharing the information because of concerns raised with him by members. M had referred to the information in a collective grievance letter. The employer appealed to the EAT. Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. 2. The employment judge had not considered the real issues in the case. She had failed to consider whether a dismissal for the wrongful or unlawful retention of confidential information for trade union purposes enjoyed the protection of section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 152 states, in summary, that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee for joining or not joining a union, taking part in its activities, using its services or refusing to accept an inducement. UNFAIR DISMISSAL Automatically unfair Trade union purposes Case Metrolink RATPDEV v Morris UKEAT/0113/16/RN Facts M, a union representative, was dismissed because his employer believed that he had obtained and shared sensitive company information. He complained of unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been automatically unfair. M had acted in the capacity of union representative, storing and sharing the information because of concerns raised with him by members. M had referred to the information in a collective grievance letter. The employer appealed to the EAT. Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. 2. The employment judge had not considered the real issues in the case. She had failed to consider whether a dismissal for the wrongful or unlawful retention of confidential information for trade union purposes enjoyed the protection of section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 152 states, in summary, that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee for joining or not joining a union, taking part in its activities, using its services or refusing to accept an inducement. UNFAIR DISMISSAL Automatically unfair Trade union purposes Case Metrolink RATPDEV v Morris UKEAT/0113/16/RN Facts M, a union representative, was dismissed because his employer believed that he had obtained and shared sensitive company information. He complained of unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been automatically unfair. M had acted in the capacity of union representative, storing and sharing the information because of concerns raised with him by members. M had referred to the information in a collective grievance letter. The employer appealed to the EAT. Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. 2. The employment judge had not considered the real issues in the case. She had failed to consider whether a dismissal for the wrongful or unlawful retention of confidential information for trade union purposes enjoyed the protection of section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 152 states, in summary, that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee for joining or not joining a union, taking part in its activities, using its services or refusing to accept an inducement. UNFAIR DISMISSAL Automatically unfair Trade union purposes Case Metrolink RATPDEV v Morris UKEAT/0113/16/RN Facts M, a union representative, was dismissed because his employer believed that he had obtained and shared sensitive company information. He complained of unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been automatically unfair. M had acted in the capacity of union representative, storing and sharing the information because of concerns raised with him by members. M had referred to the information in a collective grievance letter. The employer appealed to the EAT. Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. 2. The employment judge had not considered the real issues in the case. She had failed to consider whether a dismissal for the wrongful or unlawful retention of confidential information for trade union purposes enjoyed the protection of section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 152 states, in summary, that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee for joining or not joining a union, taking part in its activities, using its services or refusing to accept an inducement. UNFAIR DISMISSAL Automatically unfair Trade union purposes Case Metrolink RATPDEV v Morris UKEAT/0113/16/RN Facts M, a union representative, was dismissed because his employer believed that he had obtained and shared sensitive company information. He complained of unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been automatically unfair. M had acted in the capacity of union representative, storing and sharing the information because of concerns raised with him by members. M had referred to the information in a collective grievance letter. The employer appealed to the EAT. Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing. 2. The employment judge had not considered the real issues in the case. She had failed to consider whether a dismissal for the wrongful or unlawful retention of confidential information for trade union purposes enjoyed the protection of section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 152 states, in summary, that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee for joining or not joining a union, taking part in its activities, using its services or refusing to accept an inducement.

UNFAIR DISMISSAL

Automatically unfair

Trade union purposes

Case  Metrolink RATPDEV v Morris UKEAT/0113/16/RN

Facts M, a union representative, was dismissed because his employer believed that he had obtained and shared sensitive company information. He complained of unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal had been automatically unfair. M had acted in the capacity of union representative, storing and sharing the information because of concerns raised with him by members. M had referred to the information in a collective grievance letter. The employer appealed to the EAT.

Decision      1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing.

2. The employment judge had not considered the real issues in the case. She had failed to consider whether a dismissal for the wrongful or unlawful retention of confidential information for trade union purposes enjoyed the protection of section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

Section 152 states, in summary, that it is unlawful to dismiss an employee for joining or not joining a union, taking part in its activities, using its services or refusing to accept an inducement.    

 

 


Worker assaulted during drinking session after Christmas party: no vicarious liabilityHEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present. 5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.HEALTH AND SAFETY Vicarious liability Assault after Christmas Party Case Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company. Decision 1. The company was not liable. 2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event. 3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty. 4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the dr

HEALTH AND SAFETY

Vicarious liability

Assault after Christmas Party

Case  Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124, High Court

Facts B, an employee of N, went to the company’s Christmas party. After the party, a number of guests went on to a hotel and carried on drinking. The company’s managing director assaulted B in an unprovoked attack. He punched B twice. B struck his head on the floor and suffered serious brain damage. He claimed compensation from the company.

Decision      1. The company was not liable.

2. The assault was committed after and not during an organised work social event.

3. The managing director could not always be considered to be on duty.

4. There was a temporal and substantive difference between the Christmas party and the drinks at the hotel. Given the time and place, no objective observer would have seen any connection with the jobs of the employees present.

5. There was an insufficient connection between the position in which the managing director was employed and the assault to make it right for the comnay to be held liable.