Johnson v Nottinghamshire Combined Police Authority
Murphy v Epsom College
The place of work
Geographical test now favoured, Bass Leisure Ltd v Thomas, best of both worlds for the employer potentially, though in that case the EAT made clear that any use of mobility clauses must be subject to the employee's situation.
Redundancy procedure
Bessenden Properties Ltd v Corness establishes the main principles on fairness of procedure, with Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd affirming it.
Consultation
Huddersfield Parcels Ltd v Sykes on double consultation (Dyke v Hereford and Worcester County Council affirming)
Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, Section 188
special circumstances defence
Selection criteria
British Aerospace Plc v Green and FDR Ltd v Holloway on discovery of how criteria were applied
Clarke v Eley Kynoch Ltd on discrimination in criteria on gender
Re-organisations and redundancy
This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. (February 2012)
In 2002, the Court of Appeal ruled in a case brought by staff employed at Albion's Farington site in Lancashire, Albion Automotive Ltd w. Walker and others,[1] that a contractual term entitling employees to an enhanced redundancy payment could be implied into the employees' contracts of employment based on the employer's custom and practice.[2]
However, in a different 2002 decision in the Employment Appeal Tribunal, Warman International v Wilson,[2] Mr Wilson's claim of being entitled to an enhanced redundancy payment, supported by the Employment Tribunal meeting in Leeds in 2000, was overturned because previous enhanced levels of redundancy payment had on each occasion been made on a case-by-case decision and the employer, when making comparator payments to other staff made redundant, had specifically asserted that enhanced payments for some staff created no precedent on which other staff could subsequently rely.[3]