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

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll