An employee claimed re-instatement following alleged unfair selection for redundancy by an administrator.
Held: The effect of the 1986 Act was not that proceedings brought against a company in administration without consent or the permission of the court were a nullity, but only that they were liable to be stayed as other proceedings in section 11(3)(d). Lord Coulsfield said: ‘It seems to us that there is no way of construing section 11 so as to exclude from its scope claims under the employment protection legislation.’
Judges:
Lord Coulsfield
Citations:
[1994] ICR 18, [1993] BCC 855, [1994] 2 BCLC 474
Statutes:
Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 188, Insolvency Act 1986 11(3)(d)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Applied – Unite the Union and others v Sayers Confectioners Ltd EAT 9-Feb-2009
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE Application/claim
Tribunal wrong to refuse to accept complaint presented against company in administration – correct course to accept the complaint but stay it – Carr v British . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Insolvency, Scotland
Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.316668
