EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL
Where an Employment Tribunal has been directed by the Employment Appeal Tribunal and by a Regional Employment Judge, to consider an application for costs of a hearing before a differently constituted Employment Tribunal it is obliged to do so, despite any difficulty caused by having no first hand knowledge of the grounds of the application.
The Employment Tribunal had correctly considered the question of compensation for future loss. Although on review it was entitled to have regard to the fact that a Claimant had ceased to be employed when a temporary post came to an end it was not obliged to extend the period for which he was entitled to compensation. The Employment Tribunal was entitled to conclude on the evidence before it that the period for which he was entitled to claim compensation for loss of earnings terminated before the cessation of the temporary employment.
Although the Employment Tribunal had in its first decision made no mention of reinstatement or re-engagement there was no reason to doubt what was said in its decision on review that it had considered and rejected such claims. There was ample evidence to support the finding that these remedies were inappropriate.
Judges:
Sertoa QC J
Citations:
[2011] UKEAT 0406 – 10 – 2308
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Dench v Flynn and Partners (a Firm) CA 9-Jun-1998
The appellant had been dismissed for redundancy. She sought to appeal saying that there had been no redundancy. The tribunal had refused to award damages for the period after she had found alternative employment.
Held: The obtaining of . .
Cited – J K Bansi v Alpha Flight Services EAT 3-Feb-2004
EAT Redundancy – Collective consultation and information. Serota QC J said: ‘In English v Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd . . the Court of Appeal gave guidance as to the circumstances in which a Judge might be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.443293