The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) handed down judgment in the case of Southern Cross Healthcare Co Ltd v Perkins and Others [2010] EWCA Civ 1442 on the 16th December 2010. The case concerned the jurisdiction of employment tribunals.

The facts involved the employees’ contractual holiday entitlements and the statutory right of that employee to be provided with a written statement of particulars of employment (sections 1 and 4 of the Employment Rights Act 1996), including "any terms and conditions relating to … entitlement to holidays" (section 1(4)(d)(i)). While employment tribunals enjoy jurisdiction in relation to some matters concerning written statements of particulars, the question for the court to consider was whether it had jurisdiction to construe contractual terms and conditions contained or referred to in written statements of particulars.

Upon the Working Time Regulations’ entry into force in 2007 the statutory holiday entitlement was increased to 28 days, at which time the appellant informed all employees that they were to be entitled to this alone, and that any long service allowance accrued would be reduced to nil. The respondent claimed to be entitled to that allowance in addition to their increased statutory entitlement. The respondent having been successful at the employment tribunal, the appellant appealed to the Employment Appeals Tribunal on procedural and substantive grounds.

The Employment Appeals Tribunal held that the original tribunal enjoyed jurisdiction to hear the claim, that it had permissibly allowed it to proceed notwithstanding some deficiencies in the pleadings, and that it had correctly construed the employees’ contractual entitlement. The respondent, in turn appealed that decision to the Court of Appeal.

The Court allowed the appeal; following the leading case of Mears v Safecar Security Limited [1982] 1RLR 83, it held that the employment tribunal had no jurisdiction to construe written statement of particulars of employment made pursuant to the Act, but that this was instead a matter for the ordinary civil courts. Although this might be a regrettable result, it was the consequence of sections 11 and 12 of the Act, coupled with the unwillingness of successive governments to broaden the contractual jurisdiction of employment tribunals.