Category: Employment

London Underground Ltd v Edwards: EAT 13 Jan 1997

Judges:

Morison P J

Citations:

[1997] UKEAT 16 – 96 – 1301

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – London Underground Ltd v Edwards EAT 14-Feb-1995
The Tribunal considered the difficulties arising where one party was not represented, but where the case gave rise to difficult questions of law. In this case the claimant alleged sex discrimination in the context of rostering arrangements making . .

Cited by:

At EAT – London Underground Limited v Edwards (2) CA 21-May-1998
New rosters for underground train drivers were indirectly discriminatory because all the men could comply with them but not all the women could do so: it was a ‘striking fact’ that not a single man was disadvantaged despite the overwhelming . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.207126

Graham Group Plc v Garratt: EAT 20 Feb 1997

Whether claim in time – effective date of termination

Judges:

Pugsley HHJ

Citations:

[1997] UKEAT 161 – 97 – 2002

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Adams v GKN Sankey Ltd EAT 1980
The employee had been given twelve weeks notice of redundancy dismissal, and was not required to attend work during the notice period, but then worked additional days. A letter was written in November stating ‘you are given 12 weeks’ notice of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.207207

Lambrook Haileybury School v Gould: EAT 1 Dec 1998

Citations:

[1998] UKEAT 1240 – 98 – 0112

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

See Also – Gould v Lambrook Haileybury School EAT 5-Jul-1999
. .
See Also – Gould v Lambrook Haileybury School EAT 28-Jul-1999
. .
See Also – Gould v Haileybury and Imperial Service College and Another EAT 6-Jun-2001
. .
See Also – Gould v Haileybury and Imperial Service College and Another EAT 6-Jun-2001
. .
See Also – Gould v Haileybury and Imperial Service College and Another EAT 6-Jun-2001
. .
See Also – Gould v Haileybury and Imperial Service College and Another EAT 6-Jun-2001
. .
See Also – Gould v Haileybury and Imperial Service College and Another EAT 6-Jun-2001
. .
See Also – Gould v The Governors of Haileybury and Imperial Services College and others EAT 19-Jul-2002
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Compensation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.207026

Kuttapan v London Borough of Croydon and others: EAT 17 Dec 1998

Citations:

[1998] UKEAT 268 – 98 – 1712, [1999] IRLR 349

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – London Borough of Croydon v Kuttapan EAT 18-Mar-2002
EAT Race Discrimination – Direct . .
Cited – Sodexho Ltd v Gibbons EAT 14-Jul-2005
EAT Deposit ordered. Order lost in post due to the Claimant putting wrong post-code on ET1. Review. Distinguishing Judgments from Orders. Strike-out. Extending time. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.207025

Aziz v Bethnal Green City Challenge Co Ltd: EAT 3 Dec 1998

Judges:

Morison P

Citations:

[1998] UKEAT 567 – 98 – 0312

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Aziz v Bethnal Green City Challenge Company Limited CA 25-May-1999
The notice of appeal was served three days late. The Registrar and Morison J refused to extend time, the judge concluding that the explanation for the delay was honest and full, but not acceptable.
Held: Permission to appeal was refused. Sir . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.206976

Tyrrell v Transport and General Workers Union: EAT 1 Oct 1998

Citations:

[1998] UKEAT 743 – 98 – 0110

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Tyrrel v Transport and General Workers Union EAT 31-Mar-2000
. .
See Also – Her Majesty’s Attorney General v Tyrrell EAT 4-Jun-2003
Application for restriction of proceedings order – Practice and Procedure – Split hearings . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.206847

Tayler v Pipefix Ltd: EAT 14 Oct 1998

Citations:

[1998] UKEAT 147 – 98 – 1410

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Meek v City of Birmingham District Council CA 18-Feb-1987
Employment Tribunals to Provide Sufficient Reasons
Tribunals, when giving their decisions, are required to do no more than to make clear their findings of fact and to answer any question of law raised.
Bingham LJ said: ‘It has on a number of occasions been made plain that the decision of an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.206839

A v B: EAT 7 Dec 1998

The respondent challenged the appeal saying that no reasonably arguable point of law arose. The applicant said that a complaint had been made to the police, but that his employer had made no enquiries of them, and that had they done so they would have responded differently on her complaint. The employer had acted on being told of the complaint but not when he had been acquitted. The claimant had not brought this evidence to the tribunal. The tribunal had not either pursued the matter.
Held: The appeal failed. The tribunal would assist a litigant in person, but the claimant’s failure to present a piece of evidence could not amount to an error of law by the tribunal.

Judges:

Altman J

Citations:

[1998] UKEAT 1040 – 98 – 0712

Links:

Bailii

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.206968

Madden v Midland Bank Plc: EAT 27 Nov 1998

The claimant said that his employer’s investigation of the disciplinary allegation was inadequate and should not have been used as a basis for his dismissal.

Citations:

[1998] UKEAT 1107 – 98 – 2711

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

See Also – Midland Bank Plc v J Madden EAT 7-Mar-1999
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason. . .
See Also – Midland Bank Plc v Madden EAT 7-Mar-2000
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.206920

Post Office v Kalam: EAT 12 Nov 1998

Citations:

[1998] UKEAT 285 – 98 – 1211

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Meek v City of Birmingham District Council CA 18-Feb-1987
Employment Tribunals to Provide Sufficient Reasons
Tribunals, when giving their decisions, are required to do no more than to make clear their findings of fact and to answer any question of law raised.
Bingham LJ said: ‘It has on a number of occasions been made plain that the decision of an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.206940

London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham v Ladejobi: EAT 1 Nov 1998

The tribunal was asked as to the date from which time started to run for the purposes of calculating the 42-day period within which an appeal should have been brought from a decision of an Employment Tribunal, if it was to be brought at all.
Held: Morison J said that Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 did not apply to Rule 3(2): ‘The argument presented by Mr Pullen on behalf of the Respondent is to the effect that if one looks at the EAT Rules, it is clear that the intention of those Rules is that the date from which time started to run was the date when the decision was promulgated, which is the date when it was sent to the parties. That is a date which is contemplated by Rule 10(5) . . He pointed out that the Industrial Tribunals are not courts of record and therefore the sending and promulgating of the decision is the equivalent date to the date when a court of record seals its Order which is the date from which time to appeal starts to run. Accordingly he says that the date when the document was sent to the parties is the equivalent of the sealed date or the date of the sealing of a High Court Order from which time starts to run, see Order 59, Rule 4, sub-rule 1, and secondly he says, in any event, that Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 only applies to provisions in rules or statutes which are authorising or requiring documents to be served by post. It does not apply, he says, to the determination of the date from which time must be calculated for the purposes of the 42 day period.
He draws attention to the fact that the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s own Rules, Rule 35 reflect accurately the provisions of Section 7 of the Interpretation Act itself, that is where a party serves a document on the EAT by post, then it is deemed to have been delivered in the normal course of post in the absence of evidence to the contrary. So that Rule 3(2) is not a service provision. Rule 35 is the service provision to which Section 7 of the Interpretation Act would apply.
It seems to me that both submissions made by Mr Pullen are correct. As I see the position, Section 7 of the Interpretation Act is concerned and concerned only with statutory provisions authorising or requiring the service of documents by post. The section makes reference to service by post, and the opening words of Section 7 are ‘Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post . . ‘. Accordingly, I respectfully disagree with the passage in the judgment in Immigration Advisory Service v. Oommen to which I have referred. It seems to me that there is no support for the Judge considering that Section 7 applies to the calculation of the date from which time begins to run. As he said in the passage to which we have referred, the natural meaning of Section 7 is that it is dealing with service by a particular method, namely, posting and deeming documents to have been served where that method of service is adopted. That is the equivalent to Rule 35. It seems to me in those circumstances that there is no room for the application of Section 7 to the interpretation of Rule 3(2). Rule 3(2) is clear. It is the date when the document was sent to the appellant that time starts to run. Thus if Section 7 were capable of applying to Rule 3(2) it seems to me plain that a contrary intention does appear from the structure of the Rules.
That is sufficient to dispose of the appeal. But it does seem to me, furthermore, that it is highly likely that the intention of Parliament, when providing for our rules and the intention of the Lord Chancellor when making them, was to equate the date of sending of the documents which was contemporaneous with the date of promulgation as equivalent to the date when a High Court Order is sealed. It seems to me in the circumstances that there is a contrary intention shown by the Rules.’

Judges:

Morison J

Citations:

[1998] UKEAT 500 – 98 – 0111, [1999] ICR 637

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993 3, Interpretation Act 1978 7

Citing:

See Also – Smock (T/A Coniston Coach Hire) v Wilson EAT 1-Jun-1998
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council v Ladejobi EAT 2-Sep-1999
The time limits for lodging appeals against Employment tribunal rulings are strict. The date of promulgation is the operative date from which the date sent is to be calculated. The rules set aside the normal rules on interpretation as to when a . .
Cited – Sodexho Ltd v Gibbons EAT 14-Jul-2005
EAT Deposit ordered. Order lost in post due to the Claimant putting wrong post-code on ET1. Review. Distinguishing Judgments from Orders. Strike-out. Extending time. . .
Cited – Scotford v Smithkline Beecham EAT 25-Oct-2001
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.206915

Ministry of Defence v Bloomfield-Evans: EAT 9 Oct 1998

Citations:

[1998] UKEAT 1108 – 98 – 0910

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See Also – The Ministry of Defence v C Bloomfield-Evans EAT 23-Mar-2001
EAT Sex Discrimination – Jurisdiction . .

Cited by:

See Also – The Ministry of Defence v C Bloomfield-Evans EAT 23-Mar-2001
EAT Sex Discrimination – Jurisdiction . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.206794

Mirza v Nipson Printing Systems (UK) Ltd: EAT 6 Oct 1998

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason.

Citations:

[1998] UKEAT 126 – 98 – 0610, EAT/126/98

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Mirza v Nipson Printing Systems (UK) Ltd EAT 16-Mar-1998
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.206795

Khan v Nynex Cablecomms Ltd: EAT 26 Oct 1998

Citations:

[1998] UKEAT 1401 – 97 – 2610

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Owusu v London Fire and Civil Defence Authority EAT 1-Mar-1995
The employee complained of his employer’s repeated failure to regrade him, and alleged discrimination. The employer said his claim was out of time.
Held: Mummery J made the distinction between single acts of discrimination, and continuing . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.206771

Foley v Post Office: EAT 1 Oct 1998

Citations:

[1998] UKEAT 863 – 98 – 0110

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Foley v Post Office EAT 1-Mar-1999
. .
See Also – Foley v Post Office; HSBC Bank Plc (Formerly Midland Bank Plc) v Madden CA 31-Jul-2000
When an Employment Tribunal looked at whether a dismissal was reasonable, the test related not to an assessment of what tribunal members would think or do, but rather whether to ask whether the employer’s response was within a ‘band or range of . .
Cited – Venniri v Autodex Ltd EAT 13-Nov-2007
EAT Unfair dismissal: Procedural fairness/automatically unfair dismissal
The Tribunal erred in law in failing to address s98A(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Section 98A(1) is at present part of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.206740

Lovett v Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council: EAT 28 Sep 1998

Citations:

[1998] UKEAT 571 – 98 – 2809

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Lovett v Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council EAT 9-Feb-1999
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Lovett v Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council EAT 9-Feb-1999
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.206683

Evesham v North Hertfordshire Health Authority and Another: EAT 2 Sep 1998

Citations:

[1998] UKEAT 1354 – 97 – 0209

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Enderby v Frenchay Health Authority and Another ECJ 27-Oct-1993
Discrimination – Shifting Burden of Proof
(Preliminary Ruling) A woman was employed as a speech therapist by the health authority. She complained of sex discrimination saying that at her level of seniority within the NHS, members of her profession which was overwhelmingly a female . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.206673