Jinks v London Borough of Havering [2015]
Decision Number:
Published on: 25/08/2015
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Kiera Lee Partner, Mills Selig
Kiera Lee Partner, Mills Selig
Kiera lee

Kiera has over 20 years’ experience in employment law,  acting for employers in contentious and non-contentious matters. Her client list includes leading NI Companies and large employers.

Kiera’s experience covers day to day HR problems and complex restructuring issues. She has given advice on a restructure and redundancy programme involving more than 800 employees, defended multi claimant tribunal claims for unfair dismissal arising from TUPE transfers. She recently advised on the high-profile acquisition of Wrightbus and the sale of Novosco.

She also assists with strategic decisions, successfully managing the exit of senior executives including any contentious issues with shareholding and restrictive covenants.

What the legal press says about Kiera:

  • heads the department and handles contentious and non-contentious employment matters. Sources speak to her solid reputation and commend her commercial outlook, calling her a “business-focused employment lawyer.”
  • provides “an excellent level of service”
  • “has an excellent grasp of the commercial aspects of employment law.”
  • She is commercial, pragmatic and knows which battles to fight.
  • ...an excellent service in a timely manner
  • ...knowledgeable

Background

London Borough of Havering Council contracted with Saturn Leisure( SL) to operate an ice rink and a car park. SL sub-contracted the car park work to Regal Car Parks (RCP). The Council terminated the contract with SL and took management of the car park back in-house. Mr Jinks complained to an employment tribunal that his employment automatically transferred from RCP to the Council and their refusal to take him on amounted to an unfair dismissal.

The Employment Judge struck out the unfair dismissal claim as having no reasonable prospect of success as RCP’s client was SL, not the Council. As there was no contractual relationship between RCP and the Council, there could be no service provision change.

The EAT

Continue reading

We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.

Already a subscriber?

Please log in to view the full article.

What you'll get:

  • Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
  • Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
  • 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
  • Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team

Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial

Disclaimer The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article. This article is correct at 25/08/2015