Click the case name for better results:

MSF v Refuge Assurance Plc and Another: EAT 19 Feb 2001

The Union complained of inadequate consultation by the company on its making redundancies, and now appealed form a decision that the section had not been breached. Judges: Lindsay J P Citations: [2001] UKEAT 1371 – 99 – 1902, [2002] ICR 1365, [2002] IRLR 324, [2002] 2 CMLR 27, [2002] Emp LR 767 Links: Bailii Statutes: … Continue reading MSF v Refuge Assurance Plc and Another: EAT 19 Feb 2001

Regina v British Coal and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry ex parte Vardy: QBD 1993

Glidewell LJ considered the significance of the difference between the wording of the EC Directive, and the section implementing it and said: ‘In my view the difference between the wording of the Directive and the wording of section 188 of the Act 1992 is such that the section cannot be interpreted as having the same … Continue reading Regina v British Coal and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry ex parte Vardy: QBD 1993

MSF v Refuge Assurance Plc, United Friendly Insurance: EAT 15 Feb 2002

EAT The EAT considered the employer’s duties to consult on making redundancies. The ET had found that company had satisfied the requirements. The Union argued that the duty to consult arose as soon as redundancies were contemplated. Held: The Union’s appeal failed. There was no error of law. What counted as ‘good time’: ‘is not … Continue reading MSF v Refuge Assurance Plc, United Friendly Insurance: EAT 15 Feb 2002

The United States of America v Nolan: SC 21 Oct 2015

Mrs Nolan had been employed at a US airbase. When it closed, and she was made redundant, she complained that the appellant had not consulted properly on the redundancies. The US denied that it had responsibility to consult, and now appealed. Held: The appeal failed (Lord Carnworth dissenting). That the exact situation might not have … Continue reading The United States of America v Nolan: SC 21 Oct 2015

Haine v Secretary of State for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and Another; Day v Haine: CA 11 Jun 2008

Former employees had obtained a protective award against the company for failing to consult on the impending redundancies and submitted proofs of debt to the liquidator who sought guidance from the court. The judge had held that since the Act provided only one remedy, the protective awards were not provable. Held: The appeal was allowed. … Continue reading Haine v Secretary of State for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and Another; Day v Haine: CA 11 Jun 2008

Acts

1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts