EAT Unfair Dismissal – Polkey deduction
Appeal on basis that Chairman failed to consider whether a Polkey deduction was appropriate in a failure to consult redundancy unfair dismissal. Respondent had been debarred from taking part after late ET3 and Rule 9 decision. Need for care by Tribunals in such circumstances. Appeal on this ground successful. Other grounds alleging insufficient evidence and/or inadequate reasoning all dismissed.
Judges:
Cox J
Citations:
[2006] UKEAT 0663 – 05 – 2006, [2006] ICR 450
Links:
Citing:
See Also – NSM Music Ltd v J H Leefe EAT 14-Dec-2005
EAT Practice and Procedure: Appearance/Response, Review and Appellate Jurisdiction/Burns-Barke
When a Respondent has been debarred from taking part in proceedings under ET Rule 9, he may request Reasons . .
Cited – Wolesley Centers Ltd v Simmons EAT 24-May-1993
The EAT considered the Polkey principle: ‘a finding that a dismissal is unfair does not mean that an employee is entitled to full compensation for the loss resulting from the loss of his job. He is only entitled to the loss he has sustained which is . .
Cited by:
Applied – VMI (Blackburn) Ltd v Camm EAT 2-Jun-2011
EAT Practice and Procedure : Right To Be Heard – Where an Employment Tribunal has applied rule 9 of its rules of procedure, the Respondent not having lodged a response in time, is not permitted to participate in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.244141