Redbridge London Borough Council v Dhinsa and another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 February 2014 |
| Date | 26 February 2014 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Longmore, Lord Justice Jackson and Lord Justice Christopher Clarke.
A parks police officer who had made a declaration before a Justice of the Peace undertaking to secure the observance of the byelaws and regulations applying to the park was a "constable" and therefore unable to make a claim for unfair dismissal against the local authority employing him.
The Court of Appeal so held, inter alia, when dismissing the appeal of the second claimant, Mr Gordon McKinnon, from a decision of Judge Peter Clark sitting in the Employment Appeal Tribunal ([2013] ICR D33), which allowed an appeal by the defendant, Redbridge London Borough Council, from a decision of an employment tribunal at a pre-hearing that the first claimant, Mr Harjit Dhinsa, and Mr Mc Kinnon, although employed by the defendant in its parks police service, were not "police officers" or "constables" within the meaning of section 200 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, so that they were not, by that provision, denied the right to pursue claims for unfair dismissal. The first claimant did not appeal.
Ms IJeoma Omambala for Mr McKinnon; Mr Mathew Purchase for the local authority.
LORD JUSTICE JACKSON said that while there was a distinction between the professional constables who served in police forces and the council staff who patrolled the parks of Redbridge that did not mean that regular police officers were "real" constables, whereas officers patrolling t he Redbridge parks were not. There were many different forms of constable. One feature which was common to all constables was attestation. They all took an oath or made a declaration before a Justice of the Peace to the effect that they would properly perform their duties as constable.
Despite being council employees and despite being few in number, all members of the Redbridge Parks Police Service were constables in the full sense of that word.
The next issue was whether the Redbridge Parks Police Service constituted "a constabulary maintained by virtue of an enactment" within section 200(2)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The council contended that it did, because the parks service was established and maintained pursuant to section 7 of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act 1907 and article 18 of the Greater London Provisional Order for Securing Uniformity in the Law applicable with respect to Parks and Open Spaces (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Agnew Anderson,and others vs Chief Constable of the Police,Police Authority for Northern
...Nesbitt has been doubted since McGurnaghan in 2012. The opposite seems to be the case: in Redbridge London Borough Council v Dhinsa [2014] I.C.R. 834 the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) referred with approval to Lowrey Nesbitt. See parts 5–7 of the judgment of Jackson LJ on the office o......
-
Mr D Williams v The Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis: 2206410/2021
...on s.200 ERA did not advance the Claimant’s case any further. He referred me to the Court of Appeal decision in Redbridge LBC v Dhinsa [2014] ICR 834, where the Court of Appeal approving Lowrey Nesbitt, confirmed that police constables were office holders who did not have contracts of emplo......
-
Wandsworth London Borough Council v Vining and Others
...employment tribunal but before that of the EAT. On 7 June 2013, in London Borough of Redbridge v Dhinsa and McKinnon [2014] EWCA Civ 178, [2014] ICR 834 (" Redbridge") this court decided that members of local authority park police forces are employed in "police service" and thus prevented b......
-
London Borough of Wandsworth v Mr M C Vining and Others
...claim under TULRCA in that case. Against my decision Mr McKinnon appealed. The Court of UKEAT/0234/13/LA -1- Appeal dismissed his appeal [2014] ICR 834, purely as a matter of construction of section 200 After Mr McKinnon abandoned his proposed application for permission to appeal to the Sup......