Issue 71 - 7th September 2009

Monday 7 September 2009

Share This Page

Email This Page

Employment Appeal Tribunal

Time Limits

McFadyen & Ors v PB Recovery Ltd and Ors UKEATS/0072/08/BI
When an online submission of an ET1 is made successfully to the host server, it holds the ET1 for and on behalf of the Tribunal office identified by the Respondent's address in part 2.2 or the Claimant's place of work in part 2.3. It is not effectively presented for the whole of the UK. In this case, only the First Respondent's business address in Bristol was given, although the Claimant's place of work was in Scotland. The claim was subsequently rejected by the Bristol Tribunal for lack of jurisdiction and no review or appeal of that decision made. By the time it was "retrieved" by the Glasgow Tribunal the claim was therefore out of time. Read more.

Pierre-Davis v The North West London Hospitals NHS Trust UKEATPA/1496/08/LA
There was no justification for not bringing the appeal to the EAT within the 42 day time limit therefore there was no good reason for the exercise of discretion to extend time under Rule 37(2). Read more.

National Security

AB v Ministry of Defence UKEAT/0101/09/DM
The EAT gives guidance on Rule 54 (2) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure as to correct approach to applications for hearings in private in the interests of national security and the procedure to be followed. Read more.

Part-timers Pensions

Scottish Ministers v Docherty & Anor UKEATS/0053/08/BI
The Tribunal erred in not having addressing the questions of whether the Claimant would have joined the pension scheme when it was set up if she had been eligible to do so or whether, under the Equal Pay Act 1970, her ignorance of her entitlement to join the scheme from the time she was eligible to do so was attributable to a policy or campaign of the dissemination of misinformation about her rights. Read more.

Race Discrimination

Northumberland County Council v Railton UKEAT/0095/09/ZT
The EAT would not interfere with the Tribunal's findings of direct race discrimination and victimisation. The Tribunal was entitled to take into account a remark made in a statement by another employee in the Claimant's grievance procedure that the Claimant was treated differently from her, and to decide what weight to give it. Read more.

 

 

Latest tweets from Garden Court Chambers

Follow us on Twitter

Tweets by gardencourtlaw

We are top ranked by independent legal directories and consistently win awards

+ View more awards