• CIVIL

England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions

Suffolk Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust v Hurst & Ors

In this case the appeals raise the issue of the statutory grievance procedures [under the Employment Act 2002 and whether the [Employment] Tribunal properly had jurisdiction to hear various equal pay claims made by the claimants in each of those cases". The judge found that the relevant Employment Tribunals had jurisdiction to hear each of the equal pay cases raised by the claimants. In two of the cases, the unsuccessful employers, Suffolk Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust ("the Trust") and Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council ("Sandwell") and their co-appellants, who are the governing bodies of educational establishments, appeal to this court, by permission of Elias J.

It was held that there should be a return to the clear intentions underlying the establishment of the Employment Tribunal system; that lawyers should strive for clarity and simplicity, and that unions and employers should strive to make the system work in the interests of ordinary working people. Appeal dismissed.

• CRIMINAL

England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions

Pola v The Crown (Health and Safety Executive)

In this case the issue was whether there was evidence on which a reasonable jury could conclude that the appellant was an employer and, if so, whether the judge adequately directed the jury as to that issue. There was a clear causal link between the conviction and the injury. Secondly, the judge had available to him sufficient evidence of the gravity of the injury to demonstrate that it was worth far in excess of anything that he was minded to award. Thirdly, the judge had satisfied himself that there was no more convenient or practicable alternative route of which Mr. Dudi might avail himself. Fourthly, the judge had satisfied himself that the appellant had the means to satisfy the order that he had in mind. Fifthly, the order was compliant with both with the policy of Section 130 of the 2002 Act and its practice in that he gave priority to the compensation order over any other financial order. Lastly, and in our view importantly, the order was just and proper in the context of the proven culpability of the appellant. Appeal dismissed.