The Court of Appeal is today hearing an important appeal on a point of principle regarding interim relief under s.130 ERA: If a fixed term employee is found to be likely to succeed in a claim for protected disclosure dismissal and is awarded interim relief, should the resulting Continuation of Contract Order (CCO) be for payment of their normal wages up to trial or settlement, or only up to the period of the fixed term contract?
s.130(1) provides that a CCO is an order that “the contract of employment continue in force … until the determination or settlement of the complaint”. s.130(2)-(3) provides that the Tribunal shall specify the sums to be paid to the employee, and that that sum “shall be that which the employee could reasonably have been expected to earn during that period”.
The appellant, Kanlungan Migrant Centre, employed the 4 claimants who are the respondents to the appeal, under fixed term contracts until they were dismissed in November 2024, which the claimants alleged was for making a protected disclosure. Their contracts were due to expire at the end of fixed terms within weeks or months. The ET made CCOs on an indefinite basis. The EAT upheld that order, and the matter now comes before the CA.
Stuart Brittenden KC, Jack Mitchell, Richard O’Keeffe and Daniel Hallström act for Kanlungan on the appeal instructed by Victor De Cruz of De Cruz Solicitors.
