Use of successive fixed-term contracts was justified

In Duncombe v Secretary of State for Children, Schools & Families [2011] UKSC 14, the Department for Children, Schools & Families (DCSF) employed Mr Duncombe as a teacher. He was seconded to a European School in Germany under a series of fixed-term contracts for nine years.

The European School’s Internal Regulations provided that the maximum period of a teacher’s secondment was nine years. This was known as the nine-year rule.

Under reg. 8 of the Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002, Mr Duncombe claimed that his fixed-contract should become a permanent contract - since he had been employed under a series of fixed-term contracts for at least four years - and the DCSF could not justify his fixed-term employment.

The Supreme Court disagreed.

The Supreme Court held that Mr Duncombe’s employment under a series of fixed-term contracts had been justified by the nine-year rule - and therefore - his fixed-term contract had not been converted into a permanent contract.

Mr Duncombe was employed to do a particular job which could only last for nine years.

His complaint was about the nine-year rule itself – rather than the use of successive fixed-term contracts during the nine-year period.

Also see paras. 23 – 26 of the case transcript.

Guidance on the Bribery Act 2010

Guidance on the Bribery Act 2010 is available at the Ministry of Justice.