EAT Unfair Dismissal: Automatically Unfair Reasons – Automatic Unfair Dismissal – Section 100(1)(e) Employment Rights Act 1996 – Applying the two-stage approach laid down by the EAT in Oudahar v Esporta Group Ltd [2011] IRLR 730 (HHJ David Richardson presiding), the Claimant’s case before the Employment Tribunal did not satisfy the criteria required for the first stage. Characterising the Claimant’s case in this way was not unfairly taking a pleading point against him. He had been given the opportunity to provide further particulars of his case and the Employment Judge had further sought to clarify the nature of his complaint at the Preliminary Hearing. It was on the basis of the Claimant’s case as thus put that the Employment Tribunal determined it had no reasonable prospects of success and should be struck out. The case as now characterised on appeal was not the way in which the claim was put below and the Employment Tribunal did not err in determining the case before it. Appeal dismissed.
Eady QC HHJ
[2015] UKEAT 0036 – 15 – 2105
Bailii
Employment Rights Act 1996 100(1)(e)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Oudahar v Esporta Group Ltd (Unfair Dismissal : Automatically Unfair Reasons) EAT 22-Jun-2011
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Automatically unfair reasons
Unfair dismissal – automatically unfair reasons – health and safety cases.
Section 100(1)(e) should be applied in two stages.
Firstly, the . .
Cited – Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust CA 7-Mar-2007
The employer had applied to strike out their employee’s claim for unfair dismissal, and also sought a deposit from the claimant. The claim had been re-instated by the EAT.
Held: A claim should not be struck out where, as here, there were facts . .
Cited – Romanowska v Aspirations Care Ltd EAT 25-Jun-2014
EAT Practice and Procedure : Striking-Out/Dismissal – VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Protected disclosure
The Claimant, a worker on the permanent staff of a care home, asserted in her ET1 that her dismissal . .
Cited – Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd CA 17-Apr-2008
The claimant had argued that she had been unfairly dismissed since her dismissal was founded in her making a protected disclosure. The ET had not accepted either her explanation or that of the employer.
Held: The employee’s appeal failed, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.550124
