We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
This case looked at the knotty issue of whether a discriminatory
decision based on cost can be justified.
As part of an NHS re-organisation, Mr Woodcock's role as
Chief Executive was made redundant. But he continued to work for
the Trust while other suitable jobs were considered.
Mr Woodcock was 48 at the time. If he were still employed by the
Trust at 50 then he would be entitled to an enhanced early
retirement package which could have cost the NHS an extra
Ł500,000. So the Trust served redundancy notice on Mr
Woodcock which meant that he would be dismissed before reaching 50.
He claimed unfair dismissal and age discrimination.
The employment tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal found for
the Trust. It's the age discrimination point that provides real
interest. The timing of Mr Woodcock's dismissal was potentially
discriminatory but justified, it was held. It was legitimate for
the Trust to have tried to avoid additional costs and, anyway, had
notice not been served when it was then Mr Woodcock would have
received a windfall. The Trust's primary aim was to achieve a
redundancy whilst avoiding unnecessary cost and a windfall benefit,
which meant that its actions were not purely cost-related.
Mr Woodcock appealed but lost at the Court of Appeal. The
dismissal for redundancy was a legitimate aim. While timing a
redundancy purely to save costs cannot by itself be justified
(it's not a legitimate aim), this case was about more than just
cost. The circumstances of the dismissal were genuine.
An important reminder that discrimination based on cost alone
might land employers in hot water. Other legitimate aims need to
play a part.
Thomas Eggar LLP is a limited liability partnership
registered in England and Wales under registered number OC326278
whose registered office is at The Corn Exchange, Baffin's Lane,
Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1GE (VAT number 991259583). The word
'partner' refers to a member of the LLP, or an employee or
consultant with equivalent standing and qualifications. A list of
the members of the LLP is displayed at the above address, together
with a list of those non-members who are designated as partners.
Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Lexcel and
Investors in People accredited.
Thomas Eggar LLP is not authorised by the Financial
Services Authority. However, we are included on the register
maintained by the Financial Services Authority so that we can carry
on insurance mediation activity which is broadly the advising on,
selling and administering of insurance contracts. This part of our
business, including arrangements for complaints and redress if
something goes wrong, is regulated by the Solicitors Regulation
Authority. The register can be accessed via the Financial Services
Authority website. We can also provide certain further limited
investment services to clients if those services are incidental to
the professional services we have been engaged to provide as
solicitors.
Thesis Asset Management plc, our associated financial
services company, provides a comprehensive range of investment
services and advice. Thesis is owned by members of Thomas Eggar LLP
but is independent of and separate to it. No lawyer connected with
Thomas Eggar LLP provides services through Thesis as a practicing
lawyer regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Thesis is
authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority.
Thesis has its own framework of investor protection and
professional indemnity cover but Thesis clients do not enjoy the
statutory protection of solicitors' clients.
The contents of this article are intended as guidelines for
clients and other readers. It is not a substitute for considered
advice on specific issues. Consequently, we cannot accept any
responsibility for this information or for any errors or
omissions.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The High Court and, most recently, Court of Appeal decisions in the "banker bonus" litigation stemming out of the Commerzbank/Dresdner merger in 2008 have received extensive media coverage.
In October 2012, the Court of Appeal confirmed that a Service Provision Change ("SPC") TUPE transfer can only occur where the client who receives the service, before and after the change, remains the same (Hunter v McCarrick [2012] EWCA Civ 1399).
Following much debate, on 24 April 2013 the House of Lords finally gave its approval to employee shareholder status which will now take effect from Autumn 2013.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
