Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


UK Coal Mining Ltd v NUM

[2008] IRLR 4

Case summary last updated at 18/02/2020 21:34 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case UK Coal Mining Ltd v NUM

D decided to shut a mine down with large numbers of resulting redundancies. The union, P, argued that the traditional understanding of s.188-that there was no need for D to consult about the reasons for the redundancies-was wrong, since it prevented serious consultation over the avoidance of redundancies. EAT agreed, and said the traditional proposition (as propounded in Vardy) was no longer good law. It would be impossible to consult about avoiding the dismissals if the reason for them (the mine closure) couldn’t be discussed. 
Elias J: it is artificial to maintain a distinction between the reasons for a dismissal and the reasons for closure since the two are obviously interlinked. 

UK Coal Mining Ltd v NUM crops up in following areas of law