Misplaced Pages

Buckland v Bournemouth University Higher Education Corp

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

Buckland v Bournemouth University
CourtCourt of Appeal
Citations EWCA Civ 121, IRLR 606
Keywords
Unfair dismissal

Buckland v Bournemouth University EWCA Civ 121 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal, now governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Facts

Professor Buckland taught environmental archaeology. He failed a high proportion of students on his course at Bournemouth University. The fails were endorsed by the second marker, and confirmed by the university's examiner board, but the chair of the examiner board arranged for exam remarking and elevated some scores. Professor Buckland objected, there was an inquiry, and the inquiry criticised the board and vindicated Professor Buckland. Nevertheless, Professor Buckland resigned claiming constructive dismissal. The university argued that Professor Buckland had resigned of his own accord, and so there could be no claim for unfair dismissal because there was no dismissal.

The Employment Tribunal found the university committed a fundamental breach of good faith, not cured by the inquiry. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held the reasonable range of responses did not apply when examining whether there was a constructive dismissal, and upheld the Tribunal.

Judgment

The appeal was allowed, and the university's cross-appeal was dismissed.

Sedley LJ held that, following Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp when considering whether there was a fundamental breach, an employer was not absolved if it showed its actions were within a reasonable range of responses, doubting Abbey National Plc v Fairbrother and Claridge v Daler Rowney Ltd. To say that what was in a reasonable range of responses would determine a fundamental breach would drive "a coach and four" through the law of contract of which employment law was an integral part. On the argument that subsequent behaviour could ‘cure’ a fundamental breach of contract, this could not stand because its introduction into the general law of contract could not be justified. This did not mean that a wronged party may not affirm a contract, by continuing in a job.

Carnwath LJ and Jacob LJ concurred.

See also

Unfair dismissal cases
ILO Termination of Employment Convention, 1982 C 158
Employment Rights Act 1996 ss 94-132
R (Seymour-Smith) v SS for Employment UKHL 12
Gisda Cyf v Barratt UKSC 41
Kwik-Fit (GB) Ltd v Lineham ICR 183
Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp EWCA Civ 2
Buckland v Bournemouth University EWCA Civ 121
Adamas Ltd v Cheung UKPC 32
Notcutt v Universal Equipment Co Ltd EWCA Civ 3
Ford v Warwickshire CC 2 AC 71
British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell ICR 303
Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones ICR 17
Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd ICR 156
British Leyland UK Ltd v Swift IRLR 91
HSBC Bank plc v Madden EWCA Civ 3030
Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd UKHL 8
Port of London Authority v Payne EWCA Civ 26
Norton Tool Co Ltd v Tewson EW Misc 1
Dunnachie v Kingston-upon-Hull City Council UKHL 36
Nelson v British Broadcasting Corporation (No 2) ICR 110
see UK labour law and unfair dismissal

Notes

  1. E McGaughey, A Casebook on Labour Law (Hart 2019) ch 17, 745
  2. QB 761
  3. IRLR 320
  4. ICR 1267, IRLR 672

References

  • E McGaughey, A Casebook on Labour Law (Hart 2019) ch 17, 745
Categories: