Barber v Thames Television plc: CA 1992

The applicant was ‘precluded by Section 64(1)(b) from making his complaint to the industrial tribunal’ The appeal succeeded.

Judges:

Dillon LJ

Citations:

[1992] ICR 661

Statutes:

Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1988 64(1)(b)

Citing:

Appeal fromBarber v Thames Television plc EAT 1991
The EAT has a power exceptionally, to receive an argument which had not been put to tribunal. Knox J said: ‘We do not accept the proposition that any and every contention by a party to an appeal that that party by calling further evidence can show . .

Cited by:

CitedLeicester University Students Union v Mahomed EAT 6-Dec-1994
The Union appealed a finding of unfair dismissal and discrimination. It denied that she had sufficient continuous service, saying that the peirod suggested involved working for two employers. It also said that since the objection went as to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.270360