Lambert v Croydon College: EAT 19 Nov 1998

Crank was rightly decided, notwithstanding a fresh argument that it offended against section 203 by in effect sanctioning contracting out of the Act.


Judge Peter Clark


[1999] ICR 409, [1998] UKEAT 1247 – 96 – 1911, [1999] IRLR 246




England and Wales


AffirmedCrank v HMSO EAT 1985
The tribunal considered whether the parties had initially agreed a date for the termination of the employment: ‘In the present case it is a striking feature that it was the employee who himself suggested and asked agreement for 2 September 1983 as . .
See AlsoLambert v Croydon College EAT 13-May-1998
. .

Cited by:

CitedFitzgerald v University of Kent at Canterbury CA 17-Feb-2004
The parties had been in negotiations, attempting to settle a proposed action for unfair dismissal. They agreed to fix the effective date of determination at a certain date, but this was after the date fixed by the statute. The action was begun . .
See AlsoLambert v Croydon College EAT 13-May-1998
. .
CitedKirklees Metropolitan Council v Radecki CA 8-Apr-2009
The council appealed against a finding that the claimant’s case had been brought in time. There had been negotiations for a compromise agreement which had failed. The EAT had found it unclear that the employment had ended at the point asserted by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.194276