Big City Leisure Ltd v McCarthy - Amendment to ET3 should be allowed where no relevant admission made

Permission to amend ET3 as no admission to relevant averment in Claimant's ET1

Mr McCarthy was employed as doorman at a bar purchased by the appellant (Big City Leisure). Big City Leisure dismissed Mr McCarthy on the basis that they were outsourcing the security for the bar. Mr McCarthy claimed unfair and wrongful dismissal and a claim under TUPE.

The full content of this page is available to subscribers only. Please purchase a subscription if you feel this content will be of use to you.

Login or subscribe (includes subscription information) to access the full content of this page.