EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Striking out of agency worker’s claim for outstanding wages inappropriate in the light of the legal and factual complexity of such cases; and also of an email from the employer found by the Claimant shortly after the hearing, which the Tribunal ought to have admitted on an application for review.
Bean J said: ‘The original decision to strike out against the First Respondent had been made on two grounds. One was the Claimant’s statement to the Employment Judge that she considered that Parasol was not liable to pay her any money. With respect to the judge, it is unwise to rely on the view of an unrepresented Claimant as to the law, particularly in an area of such complexity and difficulty as that of agency workers. In any event, what the Claimant said was said without the benefit of the email.’
 UKEAT 0536 – 08 – 2307
Cited – Southern Cross Healthcare Co Ltd v Perkins and Others EAT 21-Apr-2010
EAT CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT
The employment tribunal can reformulate the juridical basis of a complaint so long as the facts upon which the complaint is based remain the same and . .
Appeal from – RSA Consulting Ltd v Evans CA 23-Jul-2010
The respondent worked as a consultant for the appellant through an intermediary agency. When the arrangement was terminated, she had made a claim alleging an unauthorised deduction from her wages in repect of a contractual period of one month’s . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 February 2021; Ref: scu.376153