EAT The Employment Tribunal rejected a claim for unfair dismissal for non-compliance with Rule 1(4)f): there was no express statement (or ticked box, as the new form was not used) that the Claimant was an employee. There is in fact no issue between the parties that the Claimant is an employee:
(i) The averments in the Claim Form (including dates of employment) were sufficient for compliance with 1(4)(f)
(ii) Even if there had been non-compliance, the claim should have been accepted on review, where the error is immaterial and/or explained and/or on the basis of justice and equity: there is, as for a respondent (see Moroak), a jurisdiction to review which includes correction of error or omission and/or excuse for delay.
Judges:
The Honourable Mr Justice Burton
Citations:
UKEAT/0179/05, [2005] UKEAT 0179 – 05 – 0906
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Moroak T/A Blake Envelopes v Cromie EAT 19-Apr-2005
moroak_cromieEAT2005
EAT Response lodged at the Employment Tribunal 44 minutes late and the Employment Tribunal ordered that the Respondent could take no part in the proceedings and refused to review that order on the basis it had no . .
Cited by:
Cited – The Highland Council v TGWU and Unison EAT 3-Jun-2008
EAT EQUAL PAY ACT: Equal value
Equal Pay claims. Whether letters sent to local authority employers by unions prior to coming into force of the statutory grievance procedures met the requirements of regulation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 30 January 2022; Ref: scu.228618