Case tracker—judgments handed down in 2017—pensions [Archived]
Case tracker—judgments handed down in 2017—pensions [Archived]

The following Pensions practice note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • Case tracker—judgments handed down in 2017—pensions [Archived]
  • The employment relationship and pensions
  • University of Sunderland v Drossou
  • Newcastle Upon Tyne NHS Foundation Trust v Haywood
  • Discrimination
  • Sogefi Filtration v Havard
  • MB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
  • Parker v Medical Defence Union Services Ltd and another
  • Safeway v Newton
  • Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v HY and another
  • More...

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note, which covers significant pensions judgments handed down in 2017, has been archived and is not maintained.

The entries in this tracker are organised by topic. These topics are listed in the Table of Contents (to the left of the page).

The employment relationship and pensions

University of Sunderland v Drossou

Case information:
  1. Full name: University of Sunderland v Ms K Drossou

  2. Citation: UKEAT/0341/16/RN

  3. Court: Employment Appeal Tribunal

  4. Judgment date: 13 June 2017

  5. Representation:

    1. James Boyd (instructed by Watson Burton LLP) for the Appellant (University of Sunderland)

    2. No appearance or representation by or on behalf of Respondent (Ms K Drossou)

Facts:

The appeal concerned the calculation of a week’s pay for the purposes of calculating the maximum limit of a compensatory award for unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996, s 124(1ZA)(b), and in particular whether it could include the employer’s pension contributions. The Employment Tribunal had held that the award should include such contributions.
Decision:

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that the statutory language was key when deciding whether a week’s pay for the purposes of ERA 1996 includes pension contributions made by an employer on the employee’s behalf. In construing ERA 1996, s 222, it was therefore material to look at other provisions in the same Act as an aid.

In the EAT’s judgment, the use of

Popular documents