C Sandhu v Jan De Rijk Transport: EAT 6 Feb 2006

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Exclusions including worker/jurisdiction – 11AA and 8EE – Unfair Dismissal – dismissal/ambiguous resignation – Practice and Procedure – admissibility of evidence
Appellant called to disciplinary meeting and told that he would be dismissed for misconduct. He negotiated a retirement package and left on its terms. The Tribunal found that he had left voluntarily and was not dismissed.
Held 1) that the Tribunal were entitled ,having asked the correct question – which caused him to leave – to find that he had left because of the package; 2) that the Tribunal were entitled to exclude evidence as to whether the Appellant was or was not guilty of misconduct.

Judges:

His Honour Judge J Burke Qc

Citations:

[2006] UKEAT 0451 – 05 – 0704, UKEAT/0451/05

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Cited by:

Appeal fromSandhu v Jan De Rijk Transport Ltd CA 10-May-2007
The court was asked whether the claimant had been dismissed or had resigned. He had attended a meeting to be told that his contract was to be finished. The company later complained that he had resigned when they were unable to reach a compromise on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.257743