The parties had been in negotiations, attempting to settle a proposed action for unfair dismissal. They agreed to fix the effective date of determination at a certain date, but this was after the date fixed by the statute. The action was begun within three months of the agreed date, but not the statutory date.
Held: The jurisdiction of the tribunal was statutory, and it was not open to the parties to make an agreement to give a non-statutory jurisdiction.
Judges:
Mr Justice Brooke Lord Justice Sedley Lord Justice Jacob
Citations:
[2004] EWCA Civ 143, Times 04-Mar-2004, Gazette 18-Mar-2004
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Crank v HMSO EAT 1985
The tribunal considered whether the parties had initially agreed a date for the termination of the employment: ‘In the present case it is a striking feature that it was the employee who himself suggested and asked agreement for 2 September 1983 as . .
Cited – Lambert v Croydon College EAT 19-Nov-1998
Crank was rightly decided, notwithstanding a fresh argument that it offended against section 203 by in effect sanctioning contracting out of the Act. . .
Cited – Caines v Hamon-Lummus Ltd EAT 11-Jan-1996
The effective date of termination is a statutory construct which depends on what has happened between the parties over time and not on what they may agree to treat as having happened. The EAT upheld the industrial tribunal’s view that, in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.193585