There’s quite a common belief that employment tribunals don’t award compensation for future loss beyond 3 or 6 months. Other things being equal, this isn’t…
Gross misconduct is misconduct so serious that the employer is entitled to dismiss for a first offence. What that means depends in part on the…
In RBS v Bevan, the EAT considered an appeal against an employment tribunal’s decision that it had not been reasonably practicable for the claimant to…
You can now subscribe to etclaims.co.uk by email. If you sign up you will be sent an email, containing the full text of the new post, on the same day that it is published on the site. If there are multiple posts in one day, they will be collected in a single email.
We will not use your email for any other purpose.
We say in the book (at paragraph 1.19) that there is no restriction on who may appear as a representative in the employment tribunals. This…
Maths teachers, much to the frustration of their students, always say to ‘show your working’. They mean that it is not enough to get the right answer, you should also show how you reached it.
This is good advice in legal practice as well.
In Lovett Ltd v Evans the EAT returned to the question of what makes a grievance under the statutory dispute resolution regime. Following a meeting…
Mushett v London Borough of Hounslow gives valuable guidance on when the EAT will extend the deadline for lodging an appeal.
The EAT laid out a series of principles that it would apply. In summary these are:
In Secretary of State for Health & ors v Rance & ors [2007] IRLR 665, HHJ McMullen reviews the authorities on when the EAT will be prepared to entertain a new point of law or permit a concession to be withdrawn, and sets out at paragraph 50 of his judgment the principles that he draws from them, as well as finding 3 new relevant factors in Rance itself.
In Balmain v Atlas Cleaning Ltd the employer said that it had dismissed the claimants because the manager of the shop where they worked as cleaners had required them to be removed from that work. The claimants sought a witness order to compel the manager to appear as a witness at the hearing of the unfair dismissal claim, but the tribunal refused. The EAT allowed the claimants’ appeal, saying the witness was plainly one who had potentially relevant evidence to give.