JERSEY EMPLOYMENT UPDATE: RECENT CASE LAW DEVELOPMENTS

A flurry of recent judgments in Jersey have considered some novel or interesting employment issues, touching on procedure, jurisdiction, financial remedies and the duty to give written reasons for termination. We summarise the key points below.

Page v JEV concerned whether it was procedurally unfair for the Tribunal to restrict a party who had not filed a witness statement from giving evidence at the hearing. The Royal Court, asked to give leave to appeal on this issue, expressed concern about the Tribunal’s approach in principle, noting that a party should generally be notified of “their right to give evidence“. However, on the facts, the Court concluded that there had been no error of law: the party in question (an unrepresented litigant) had expressly confirmed that he would not give evidence in chief, filed other witness statements, and said that he would inform the Tribunal if anything changed.

• Key point: Failure to exchange a witness statement will not necessarily prevent a party from giving evidence. Concerns should be raised promptly as a case management issue, with sanctions sought where appropriate.

Olliver v RFS considered whether or not an employee had qualifying service to bring an unfair dismissal claim in circumstances where an initial notice of termination was later followed by a second notice bringing forward the termination date (with a payment in lieu of the remaining notice period). Noting that an employer may bring forward the termination date by giving a second, shorter termination notice provided the revised date is identifiable and unambiguous, the Tribunal held that the second notice given in this case was sufficiently clear.

• Key point: Whilst any notification of termination arrangements requires clarity, the wording of a variation is critical. Unless the qualifying service requirement does not apply (such as in a case involving a discriminatory dismissal, for example) an unfair dismissal claim does not arise where the dismissal is effective with notice before 52 weeks’ service or where the statutory minimum notice period, if given, would also have ended before 52 weeks’ service.

In C v Minister for Education, disability discrimination claims relating to educational needs in a secondary school setting had succeeded and the Tribunal was asked to assess compensation. In particular, this prompted the question of whether the increased cap for compensation introduced in July 2025 should apply. The respondent argued that the previous lower cap should apply because the relevant events pre-dated the increase. After considering the general principle that new rights and obligations should not generally be retrospective, the Tribunal concluded that there had been “just enough” of an indication that the higher cap was intended to apply.

• Key point: In the absence of transitional provisions, the Tribunal may apply the higher compensation limits to claims before it, regardless of when the discrimination occurred.

Cova v Trust Cleaning involved successful claims for failure to provide written terms of employment and written reasons for dismissal. Noting that the duty to give written reasons was only recently introduced, the Tribunal outlined factors to be considered in deciding what (if any) compensation to award for a failure to meet the requirement. Here, the Tribunal accepted that verbal reasons had been given, there was no evidence of prejudice to the claimant, and the employer was a small business with limited HR capability which had accepted the failing and promised to rectify it.

• Key point: The Tribunal has identified relevant factors to be considered where written reasons for dismissal are not given, which may limit compensation awards in many cases.

If you would like to discuss what these decisions may mean for your organisation, or need support with employment or discrimination matters, please contact your usual Mourant contact.