header-logo header-logo

10 January 2008
Issue: 7303 / Categories: Legal News , Terms&conditions , Disciplinary&grievance procedures , Employment
printer mail-detail

Appeal court confirms double jeopardy rule

Employment Law

Employees claiming contractual benefits, such as sick pay, cannot chase further claims against their employers if something else happens to them after the original mishap, the Court of Appeal has ruled.

 

Suzanne Hawkins, a solicitor from Browne Jacobson, who acted for the defendant in Brazier v Wolverhampton City Council, says the ruling confirms the double jeopardy rule applies to damages payments.

 

She says: “This ruling is also good news for the insurance industry as it brings clarity to an area of law that has been in confusion for some time.

 

“Clear rulings on complex issues such as contractual benefits should be welcomed by insurers and employers as they provide guidance on future cases and also deter employees from bringing spurious or speculative claims to court,” she adds.

 

Martin Porter QC of 2 Temple Gardens, who acted for Wolverhampton City Council, says: “The position may be more interesting if the facts are such that the benefit is payable as a consequence of subsequent non-tortious injury or disease.”

 

Brazier, a care assistant, suffered a back injury while at work in 2003. She undertook lighter duties until this work became unavailable. She was then paid sick pay and given notice of ill health retirement. During the notice period, an accident left her unfit for work. Her claim that she should be entitled to a full year of sick pay was rejected by the appeal court.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll