Rule 30(6) of the 2004 Rules, which requires sufficient reasons, is intended to be a guide and not a straitjacket so that if it can be reasonably spelled out from a determination that what the rule requires has been provided by the Tribunal, then no error of law will have been committed.
Judges:
Buxton LJ, Maurice Kay LJ, Sir Peter Gibson
Citations:
[2006] EWCA Civ 1240, [2007] IRLR 63
Links:
Statutes:
Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1991, Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 30(5)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Balfour Beatty Power Networks Ltd Interserve Industrial Services Ltd v C Wilcox and 6 others A Seymour and 18 others I M Realisation Ltd (In Administration) EAT 2-Nov-2005
EAT Transfer of Undertakings: Consultation and Other Information; Transfer
Practice and Procedure: Appellate Jurisdiction
Nature of ‘undertaking’ for the purposes of TUPE: could there be a stable . .
Cited by:
Cited – Short (Appeal No 2) v P J Hayman and Co Ltd EAT 7-Dec-2009
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Appellate jurisdiction /reasons/Burns-Barke
Perversity
The Employment Tribunal failed to include in its written reasons a number of matters including a concise statement . .
Cited – Arhin v Enfield Primary Care Trust CA 20-Dec-2010
The claimant doctor appealed against the refusal of compensatory damages awarded on a finding that she had been unfairly selected for redundancy. . .
Cited – Uche v Oxfordshire County Council (Unfair Dismissal) EAT 23-May-2013
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL
The Claimant’s appeal against the finding that she had not been unfairly constructively dismissed was refused on the basis of the facts found by the Employment Tribunal. The Employment . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.245165