Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive ta Nexus v Mr S Anderson and Others
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Hand |
| Neutral Citation | UKEAT/0151/16/BA |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Unlawful Deduction from Wages,Not landmark |
| Date | 15 January 2018 |
| Published date | 15 January 2018 |
Copyright 2018
Appeal No. UKEAT/0151/16/BA
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
FLEETBANK HOUSE, 2-6 SALISBURY SQUARE, LONDON EC4Y 8AE
At the Tribunal
On 9 May 2017
Judgment handed down on 15 January 2018
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE HAND QC
(SITTING ALONE)
TYNE AND WEAR PASSENGER TRANSPORT EXECUTIVE APPELLANT
t/a NEXUS
MR S ANDERSON & OTHERS RESPONDENTS
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
UKEAT/0151/16/BA
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant MS LUCY BONE
(of Counsel)
Instructed by:
Addleshaw Goddard LLP
One St Peter’s Square
Manchester
M2 3DE
For the Respondents MR RICHARD STUBBS
(of Counsel)
Instructed by:
Thompsons
Maybrook House
27-35 Grainger Street
Newcastle Upon Tyne
NE1 1TH
UKEAT/0151/16/BA
SUMMARY
UNLAWFUL DEDUCTION FROM WAGES
In previous decisions of divisions of this Tribunal in Agarwal v Cardiff University and
Another UKEAT/0210/16/RN and Weatherilt v Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd UKEAT/
0333/16/RN a difference of view had arisen as to the jurisdiction of Employment Tribunals in
relation to claims for deduction from wages under Part II Employment Rights Act 1996 where
the parties did not agree about the meaning of contractual provisions. By analogy with the
approach taken by the Court of Appeal in Southern Cross Healthcare Co Ltd v Perkins and
Others [2010] EWCA Civ 1442, [2011] ICR 285 in Agarwal it was decided that the
Employment Tribunal had no jurisdiction if the contract had to be construed. Weatherilt
declined to follow Agarwal because the decisions in the Court of Appeal in Delaney v Staples
(trading as De Montfort Recruitment) [1991] ICR 331 and Camden Primary Care Trust v
Atchoe [2007] EWCA Civ 714 accepted that in deciding whether a deduction was authorised
the terms of the contract, express or implied, had to be considered. On consideration of further
authorities, including Anderson and Others v London Fire & Emergency Planning
Authority [2013] EWCA Civ 321 and Cabinet Office v Beavan and Others UKEAT/
0262/13/BA, Weatherilt was followed on the principles enunciated in Lock and Another v
British Gas Trading Ltd (No 2) UKEAT/0189/15/BA, [2016] IRLR 316. The Court of
Appeal decisions in Coors Brewers Ltd v Adcock and Others [2007] ICR 983 and Tradition
Securities & Futures SA v Alexandre Mouradian [2009] EWCA Civ 60 were dealing with a
different problem and were to be distinguished. Nor should the remarks made about the nature
of the Part II procedure in Delaney in the House of Lords by Lord Browne-Wilkinson and by
Wall LJ in Coors be regarded as conclusive; nowadays Employment Judges deal with complex
matters.
To continue reading
Request your trial