Mr C Armstrong and others v British Airways Avionic Engineering Limited Heard: by video — 2021

The claim concerned whether the claimants' case on enhanced redundancy payments had been properly pleaded in the original ET1. The twenty-eight claimants said they were contractually entitled to redundancy payments calculated on a more generous basis than the statutory sums paid by British Airways Avionic Engineering Limited following 2020 redundancy dismissals. The respondent said the ET1 pleaded only implication by custom and practice, and that the later references to incorporation through a collective agreement, the Associate Handbook, and the Redundancy Policy were new matters requiring amendment.

The tribunal read the Details of Claim as a whole and held that the pleading was not confined to implication by custom and practice. It relied on the narrative paragraphs referring to the 2000 agreement with Unite, the prior payment of enhanced redundancy payments in 2000, 2001 and 2009, the Associate Handbook, and the written Redundancy Policy stating that it 'will be adhered to'. It also noted that paragraph 13 asserted an implied term without limiting that to custom and practice, and that paragraph 16 referred to past practice 'including (but not limited to)' the prior payment history.

On that basis, the tribunal concluded that the ET1 already pleaded that the contractual term arose impliedly through incorporation via the Redundancy Policy and/or the Associate Handbook as well as through custom and practice. The further particulars, both original and amended, were therefore treated as further particulars of the existing claim rather than amendments. Because no amendment was needed, the tribunal did not go on to apply the Selkent amendment exercise, and it made no substantive ruling on whether the redundancy policy was contractual or whether the respondent had breached it.