The application proceeded against one named respondent. Even though the true identity of the intended defendant was known throughout, no application to substitute the correct defendant was made. An unfair diamissal was found, but not as against the named defendant, the triunal refused an application to substitute the correct defendant and the claim was lost. The employee appealed.
Held: The EAT not only allowed the correct employer to be substituted for the original Respondent, but adopted the Employment Tribunal’s findings on unfairness against the new Respondent, ordering that Respondent to pay compensation to the Applicant. However the new Respondent was given leave to apply for a review of the Employment Appeal Tribunals decision.
Citations:
[1993] UKEAT 338 – 92 – 0902, (1993) ICR 698
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Cocking v Sandhurst (Stationers) Ltd NIRC 1974
The Appellant employee had applied for leave to amend his first application by substituting the name of the parent company. The Tribunal held that the rules of procedure relating to time limits went to their jurisdiction and that the amended . .
Cited – Watts v Seven Kings Motor Co Ltd EAT 1983
The tribunal had made an award against the defendant, but only later was the true identity of the defendant company setled, and they were substituted.
Held: The EAT allowed an amendment to name the firm as Respondent; the Employment Tribunal’s . .
Cited by:
Cited – 1A Centre Community Association Ltd v Gwiazda and others EAT 14-Jul-2000
The claimants alleged an unlawful deduction from their wages, and unfair dismissal. The employer appealed, complaining that the limited company had been added late. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 19 June 2022; Ref: scu.210461