The issue in Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v Haywood (2018) UKSC 22 was when the notice period begins to run, if an employee is dismissed on written notice posted to his home address. If the answer is not specified in the contract of employment, is it (i) when the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of post; (ii) when it was in fact delivered to that address; or (iii) when the letter comes to the attention of the employee and he or she has either read it or had a reasonable opportunity to do so? Read more »

Does an employee continuing to work following implementation of a pay freeze constitute acceptance of a variation of contractual provisions in collective agreements giving entitlement to pay progression? It all depends on the circumstances of the case, says the Court of Appeal in Abrahall v Nottingham City Council (2018) EWCA Civ 796.  Underhill LJ reviewed Rigby v Ferodo, Jones v Associated Tunnelling, Selectron, Khatri, and Cartwright v Tetrad.  Underhill LJ described Khatri as “significant”, including because of its endorsement that conduct relied upon to constitute an acceptance must be “only acceptable to the employee having accepted the proposed variation”.  Underhill LJ said:-

Read more »

In Case No. EA/2017/0057, Hartlepool Borough Council v The Information Commissioner, the FTT was concerned with whether under FoIA Section 43(2) disclosure would or would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of any party and if so whether the public interest in maintaining that exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The FTT upheld the Commissioner’s Decision that the disputed information must be disclosed.  The Borough Council’s Appeal was dismissed.

The request was for information in relation to the transfer of ownership in 2003 of what was then Teesside International Airport (“TIA”).  TIA had been owned by 6 Tees Valley local authorities, including Hartlepool. In 2003, Peel Group reached an agreement with them to acquire a 75% shareholding in TIA.  TIA became Durham Tees Valley Airport (“DTVA”). The 6 local authorities retained a combined 25% shareholding in DTVA, with Peel Investments Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Peel Group, being the majority shareholder. The aggregate shareholding of the 6 local authorities in DTVA is currently 11%. Read more »

In Case E-4/17, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Norway, Judgment on 21 March 2018, the EFTA Court considered a tender procedure launched by the Municipality of Kristiansand for the construction and operation of an underground car park.  The issue was whether the contracts constituted a public works concession.  The Court concluded that the contracts were of pecuniary interest (paragraph 73), they were of direct economic benefit to the municipality (paragraph 74), and constituted a public contract (paragraph 75); that the construction of the car park constituted works (paragraph 76); that the titles given to the contracts cannot be decisive (paragraph 77); that the crucial objective of the contracts was the construction of the car park, but there was an element of services inherent in the contract, the services element could not be singled out in a separate procedure, and the works and services elements of the contracts formed an indivisible whole (paragraph 79); that when contracts include elements of both works and services, it is the “main object” of the contract which determines the body of rules to be applied (paragraphs 80-82); that the main object was the works (paragraphs 83-84); and that the contracts were public works contracts (paragraph 85). Read more »

In Kebbell Developments Ltd v Leeds City Council (2018) EWCA Civ 450 Singh LJ said in relation to an alleged duty of consultation at common law:-

“61.    … on its facts, Moseley concerned a situation in which there was a statutory duty of consultation. There was therefore no issue in that case about the existence of a duty of consultation.

62. In my respectful view, it is important to be careful to distinguish between different senses of the word “consultation” which can sometimes be found in the authorities on this subject. First, there may be cases in which there is no dispute about the existence of an obligation to consult which is imposed upon a public authority. Very often the source of that obligation will be legislation, so there will be a statutory duty of consultation. In such cases the context will usually be not an individual decision which affects a particular person or persons but rather the formulation of general policy or draft legislation.
63. The issue which may then arise is what the exact content of that duty of consultation requires. That was considered in the well known case of Gunning … :

“First, … consultation must be at a time when proposals are still at a formative stage. Second, … the proposer must give sufficient reasons for any proposal to permit of intelligent consideration and response. Third … adequate time must be given for consideration and response and, finally, fourth, … the product of consultation must be conscientiously taken into account in finalising any statutory proposals.” Read more »