Cases - Employment Appeal Tribunal
-
Forthcoming EAT cases in the week commencing 1st March 2010
01/03/10
The Cause Lists showing cases due for hearing, during week commencing 1 March 2010, in the EAT in England & Wales.
-
Mehta v LB of Hackney - no "mandatory checklists" for deciding whether to extend time limits
19/01/10
There are no "mandatory check-lists" that a tribunal must go through when deciding whether or not to extend time.
-
Opara v Partnerships in Care Ltd - review of strike out should have been at a full hearing
15/02/10
Review of a strike-out for non-compliance with an unless order should normally be by way of a full tribunal hearing.
-
Manning & Anor v Middleton Miniature Mouldings - no perversity in refusal to attach weight to written statement
01/03/10
There was no perversity in an employment tribunal, which is not bound by rules of evidence, deciding that it would not attach any weight to the written statement of an absent witness.
-
Annodata Ltd v Jones - tribunal failed to properly consider Polkey and contributory fault
01/03/10
An employment tribunal erred when, having found a dismissal to be procedurally unfair, it failed to (1) properly explain the reasons why it concluded there was no contributory fault by the dismissed employee and (2) failed to apply the Polkey approach and consider "what might have been" had a fair procedure been followed.
-
Bradford & Bingley Plc v McCarthy - common sense standards must be applied in considering burden of proof in unfair dismissal cases
01/03/10
In this case there was such substantial evidence of potential unfairness that as a matter of common sense the Employment Tribunal was entitled to expect the employer to call evidence to rebut prime facie unfairness and the fact that it took into account the employer's failure to do so did not mean that it had placed the burden of proof on the employer.
-
Fullerton v Interights International Centre for the Legal Protection of Human Rights - judge should not have ruled claims out of time
19/02/10
Tribunal must not just look isolated incidents, but at broader picture to see if they may be connected and so a "continuing act", when deciding on time limit questions in discrimination cases.
