Jurisdictional Points - Worker, employee or neither The ET erred in holding that contracts for the employment of a locum consultant entered into in breach of the National Health Service (Appointment of Consultants) Regulations 1996 as amended were not ultra vires. However the ET did not err in holding that even if they were ultra vires, the locum consultant was an employee within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and could pursue a claim for unfair dismissal in respect of the non re ...
|
Race Discrimination - Inferring discrimination Tribunal wrong to apply test in King v Great Britain-China Centre [1992] ICR 516 instead of applying s.54A of Race Relations Act 1976 on the basis that the Claimant was claiming “colour discrimination” – Chagger v Abbey National plc [2009] ICR 624 followed – but held that there was on the facts no substantive difference between the two approaches and that the Tribunal had been entitled on the evidence not to find race discr ...
|
Practice and Procedure - Review Claimant representative failed to attend review hearing on time and the application was dismissed. This is an appeal seeking relief against that sanction attacking the inadequate reasoning of the Tribunal. Case remitted for review hearing before fresh Employment Tribunal Judge.
|
Unfair Dismissal - Compensation This is an appeal regarding the Tribunal's findings in respect of the Claimant's efforts to mitigate their loss in an unfair dismissal case. Matter remitted back to the Tribunal to determine this.
|
Transfer of Undertakings - Transfer This is an appeal regarding the definition of “activities” under the TUPE Regulations 2006. In this case, the EAT held that the Tribunal was correct in their view that activities had substantially changed for the purposes of Regulation 3(1)(b)(ii) of the TUPE regulations.
|
Practice and Procedure - Appellate jurisdiction/Reasons/Burns-Barke This is an appeal regarding a Notice of Appeal without supporting documents which was lodged on day 41 at the Employment Tribunal and forwarded to the EAT on day 42 with missing documents lodged on day 45. The substantive appeal had no merit. A discretionary extension was refused, no explanation being given for the first 41 days, or the incomplete and mistaken lodging at the Employment Tribunal.
|
Practice and Procedure - Review A review was ordered of a strike out for non pursuit of the claim. Notice was not given to the Claimant and she did not know of the review hearing where the strike out was affirmed. A further application for review of the review judgment was dismissed. Held: this was a cogent ground under Rule 34 and the review judgment was set aside and a rehearing ordered.
|
Sex Discrimination - Inferring discrimination Claimant summarily dismissed, without any kind of process, on the basis of an allegation that he had raped a colleague – Dismissal without due process held by the Tribunal to constitute sex discrimination on the basis that the employer had feared that if Claimant were not dismissed summarily he might commit violence towards the complainant or others; and that that fear was on the ground of his sex. Held that there was no sufficient basis in t ...
|
Practice and Procedure - Time for appealing This is an appeal regarding the time limits for lodging an appeal. An appeal from Registrar allowed after evidence heard as to the extent of the Appellant’s disability due to severe dyslexia.
|
Redundancy - Fairness The Claimant was the only employee of a family firm. A redundancy situation arose. The Claimant was then unfairly dismissed. He applied to the Employment Tribunal. Three relevant issues arose. (1) Would he have been dismissed if a fair procedure had been adopted? (2) What uplift should the Tribunal award for failure to follow statutory procedures? And (3) to what figures should the uplift be applied? Held: (1) The Tribunal h ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |