By Daniel Gorry on 29/06/2006 00:00
The Employment Tribunal should have explained to what extent it regarded the Claimant as responsible for the costs as opposed to his legal advisor and it would have been helpful for the Employment Tribunal in coming to its conclusion to have worked out what proportion of the costs that were being claimed, reflected the costs attributable to unreasonable behaviour and what reflected the overall costs.
|
By Daniel Gorry on 28/06/2006 00:00
Constructive dismissal û whether ET reasons adequately dealt with issues raised at appeal allowed and case remitted to fresh ET for rehearing.
|
By Daniel Gorry on 23/06/2006 00:00
Unfair Dismissal - Procedural Fairness/automatical
The dismissal for redundancy was, in general terms, clearly procedurally unfair but the Tribunal found that section 98A(1) did not apply while section 98A(2) did and on the basis of section 98A(2) the employers would probably have dismissed anyway, with the effect that the dismissal was, as a result, not unfair. Held that section 98A(1) & (2) applied or did not apply together, that the transitional provisions in Regulation 18 of the Dispute Regulations applied to section 98A(1) û because that su ...
|
By Daniel Gorry on 22/06/2006 00:00
Very unusual case. The Employer was almost totally disabled the employee was his carer. The employer believed that their essentially close and intimate relationship had broken down and he did not wish the carer to continue she was dismissed. The tribunal found that some other substantial reason had not been made out and that the dismissal was procedurally unfair. Held that the Tribunal had applied the wrong test to the ascertainment of the reason for the dismissal and had f
|
By Daniel Gorry on 24/05/2006 00:00
Tribunal found 20% contributory fault and that the employee was not entitled to future pension loss. Were the conclusions justified? Did the Tribunal provide clear reasons to justify the conclusion that had indeed concluded that there would be no further pension loss?
|
By Daniel Gorry on 19/05/2006 00:00
Practice and Procedure. Employment Tribunal Chairman rejecting claim form on basis that ClaimantÆs address not given (but ClaimantÆs solicitorsÆ name and address were given). Application for review refused by Chairman. These appeals, against both decisions, raise the questions (1) whether the procedural rules are absolute and/or (2) whether their rigour may be tempered on a review.
|
By Euan Dow on 01/05/2006 23:00
No valid Originating Application or claim form having been received by an Employment Tribunal containing the Claimant's case for equal pension treatment, there is no jurisdiction in the EAT to hear an appeal under section 21 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 in the absence of some judgment decision order or proceedings of an Employment Tribunal. Nor has there been any refusal by the Tribunal to hear the claim since it has not been presented.
|
By Euan Dow on 27/04/2006 00:00
Application of ET Rule 33 review procedure. Mandatory requirement for written application for review not fulfilled. Review refused. Appeal allowed - case remitted to consider (1) whether time for review application should be extended and (2) if so, whether default judgment should be set aside.
|
By Daniel Gorry on 21/04/2006 00:00
Unlawful Deduction from Wages Out of Time
The alleged ôdeductionö from wages was in fact an alleged underpayment some time after the termination of the contract of employment. In finding that time for claiming in respect of such deduction ran from the date of termination, the Tribunal fell into error. Time would normally begin to run from such date where there had been a complete non-payment, but where the claim was for an underpayment, time runs from the date when the underpayment was made for it was to be treated as the sum form which ...
|
By Daniel Gorry on 12/04/2006 00:00
Unfair Dismissal: Reasonableness of dismissal
The Employment Tribunal found certain procedural defects in handling a redundancy exercise. The questions before the EAT were: Did they constitute a breach of the relevant statutory dismissal procedure so as to render the dismissal automatically unfair under section 98A(1) ERA? Alternatively, did they render the dismissal unfair under s 98(4) ERA? If potentially they did, could the employer rely upon section 98A(2) ERA and allege that the dismissal would have occurred in any event even if proper ...
|
| 1 2 3 |