Knowledge

Buckland v Bournemouth University Higher Education Corp

Source πŸ“

28: 99:. 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. 132:. 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 β€˜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. 102:
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.
122: 128: 120:
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
279: 180: 555: 443: 164: 427: 183: 560: 550: 211: 291: 251: 157: 116: 188: 317: 27: 265: 399: 331: 565: 385: 150: 359: 95:
Professor Buckland taught environmental archaeology. He failed a high proportion of students on his course at
345: 413: 239: 197: 84: 371: 305: 96: 349: 321: 335: 8: 375: 225: 269: 72: 46: 403: 295: 255: 201: 461: 433: 229: 215: 80: 59: 417: 389: 544: 472: 457: 76: 142: 111:
The appeal was allowed, and the university's cross-appeal was dismissed.
542: 445:Nelson v British Broadcasting Corporation (No 2) 158: 429:Dunnachie v Kingston-upon-Hull City Council 185:Termination of Employment Convention, 1982 172: 165: 151: 26: 556:Court of Appeal (England and Wales) cases 543: 212:R (Seymour-Smith) v SS for Employment 146: 292:Notcutt v Universal Equipment Co Ltd 252:Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp 135:Carnwath LJ and Jacob LJ concurred. 117:Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp 13: 318:British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell 14: 577: 266:Buckland v Bournemouth University 69:Buckland v Bournemouth University 21:Buckland v Bournemouth University 400:Port of London Authority v Payne 332:Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones 123:Abbey National Plc v Fairbrother 561:2010 in United Kingdom case law 386:Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd 114:Sedley LJ held that, following 551:United Kingdom labour case law 515: 506: 497: 484: 360:British Leyland UK Ltd v Swift 1: 527: 346:Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd 7: 414:Norton Tool Co Ltd v Tewson 240:Kwik-Fit (GB) Ltd v Lineham 138: 129:Claridge v Daler Rowney Ltd 106: 10: 582: 198:Employment Rights Act 1996 85:Employment Rights Act 1996 454: 440: 424: 410: 396: 382: 368: 356: 342: 328: 314: 302: 288: 276: 262: 248: 236: 222: 208: 195: 178: 58: 53: 42: 34: 25: 20: 535:A Casebook on Labour Law 492:A Casebook on Labour Law 478: 90: 566:Bournemouth University 537:(Hart 2019) ch 17, 745 494:(Hart 2019) ch 17, 745 372:HSBC Bank plc v Madden 306:Ford v Warwickshire CC 173:Unfair dismissal cases 97:Bournemouth University 83:, now governed by the 521:ICR 1267, IRLR 672 280:Adamas Ltd v Cheung 226:Gisda Cyf v Barratt 468: 467: 79:case, concerning 65: 64: 573: 522: 519: 513: 510: 504: 501: 495: 488: 462:unfair dismissal 446: 430: 186: 167: 160: 153: 144: 143: 81:unfair dismissal 60:Unfair dismissal 30: 18: 17: 581: 580: 576: 575: 574: 572: 571: 570: 541: 540: 530: 525: 520: 516: 511: 507: 502: 498: 489: 485: 481: 469: 464: 450: 444: 436: 428: 420: 406: 392: 378: 364: 352: 338: 324: 310: 298: 284: 272: 258: 244: 232: 218: 204: 191: 184: 174: 171: 141: 109: 93: 38:Court of Appeal 12: 11: 5: 579: 569: 568: 563: 558: 553: 539: 538: 529: 526: 524: 523: 514: 505: 496: 482: 480: 477: 476: 475: 466: 465: 455: 452: 451: 441: 438: 437: 425: 422: 421: 411: 408: 407: 397: 394: 393: 383: 380: 379: 369: 366: 365: 357: 354: 353: 343: 340: 339: 329: 326: 325: 315: 312: 311: 303: 300: 299: 289: 286: 285: 277: 274: 273: 263: 260: 259: 249: 246: 245: 237: 234: 233: 223: 220: 219: 209: 206: 205: 196: 193: 192: 179: 176: 175: 170: 169: 162: 155: 147: 140: 137: 108: 105: 92: 89: 63: 62: 56: 55: 51: 50: 44: 40: 39: 36: 32: 31: 23: 22: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 578: 567: 564: 562: 559: 557: 554: 552: 549: 548: 546: 536: 533:E McGaughey, 532: 531: 518: 509: 500: 493: 490:E McGaughey, 487: 483: 474: 473:UK labour law 471: 470: 463: 459: 458:UK labour law 453: 448: 447: 439: 435: 432: 431: 423: 419: 416: 415: 409: 405: 402: 401: 395: 391: 388: 387: 381: 377: 376:EWCA Civ 3030 374: 373: 367: 362: 361: 355: 351: 348: 347: 341: 337: 334: 333: 327: 323: 320: 319: 313: 308: 307: 301: 297: 294: 293: 287: 282: 281: 275: 271: 268: 267: 261: 257: 254: 253: 247: 242: 241: 235: 231: 228: 227: 221: 217: 214: 213: 207: 203: 199: 194: 190: 187: 182: 177: 168: 163: 161: 156: 154: 149: 148: 145: 136: 133: 131: 130: 125: 124: 119: 118: 112: 104: 100: 98: 88: 86: 82: 78: 77:UK labour law 74: 71: 70: 61: 57: 52: 48: 45: 41: 37: 33: 29: 24: 19: 16: 534: 517: 508: 499: 491: 486: 442: 426: 412: 398: 384: 370: 358: 344: 330: 316: 304: 290: 278: 270:EWCA Civ 121 264: 250: 238: 224: 210: 134: 127: 121: 115: 113: 110: 101: 94: 73:EWCA Civ 121 68: 67: 66: 47:EWCA Civ 121 15: 404:EWCA Civ 26 49:, IRLR 606 545:Categories 528:References 296:EWCA Civ 3 256:EWCA Civ 2 418:EW Misc 1 43:Citations 512:IRLR 320 139:See also 107:Judgment 54:Keywords 449:ICR 110 434:UKHL 36 363:IRLR 91 350:ICR 156 322:ICR 303 309:2 AC 71 283:UKPC 32 243:ICR 183 230:UKSC 41 216:UKHL 12 503:QB 761 390:UKHL 8 336:ICR 17 202:94-132 479:Notes 189:C 158 91:Facts 75:is a 35:Court 460:and 456:see 126:and 200:ss 181:ILO 547:: 87:. 166:e 159:t 152:v

Index


EWCA Civ 121
Unfair dismissal
EWCA Civ 121
UK labour law
unfair dismissal
Employment Rights Act 1996
Bournemouth University
Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
Abbey National Plc v Fairbrother
Claridge v Daler Rowney Ltd
v
t
e
ILO
Termination of Employment Convention, 1982
C 158
Employment Rights Act 1996
94-132
R (Seymour-Smith) v SS for Employment
UKHL 12
Gisda Cyf v Barratt
UKSC 41
Kwik-Fit (GB) Ltd v Lineham
Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
EWCA Civ 2
Buckland v Bournemouth University
EWCA Civ 121
Adamas Ltd v Cheung
Notcutt v Universal Equipment Co Ltd

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑