The following decisions have been placed on the EAT website this morning:
Nicholls v London Borough of Greenwich (Bell J., 14th June 2002)
Ms Nicholls was employed by a local authority for many years. Her contract provided that, on retirement, she receive a sum of two weeks' pay for each year worked. However, under regulations made pursuant to the Superannuation Act 1972, the ability of local authorities to make payments on retirement was capped at a level below that which Ms Nicholls would receive under her contract.
The EAT held that Ms Nicholls could not sue on her contract to recover the difference. The local authority was prohibited by statute from agreeing to pay the excess, thus the relevant provision in her contract was unenforceable. Permission was granted to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
To see the decision, go to http://www.employmentappeals.gov.uk/uploads/EAT134002542002/index.htm
Robinson v The Home Office (HHJ Wakefield, 3rd May 2002)
The Applicant submitted a medical certificate in support of her written application to adjourn her discrimination claim. A chairman rejected her application, stating that the tribunal would permit her to take frequent breaks, if needed. She then submitted another medical certificate, bearing the same date from the same medical practice, but signed by a different doctor. The tribunal again refused an adjournment, implying (by using the word 'purported') that the medical certificates were not genuine. It heard the case in her absence and dismissed it.
The EAT quashed the decision on the basis that the tribunal had no grounds to doubt the authenticity of the medical certificates. It also referred to the Applicant's right to a fair trial under article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Accordingly, the Applicant's case was remitted to a fresh tribunal.
To see the decision, go to http://www.employmentappeals.gov.uk/uploads/EAT53301352002/index.htm