EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – 2002 Act and pre-action requirements
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Amendment
EQUAL PAY ACT – Case Management
Equal pay claimants in their original grievances named a single comparator – In their ET1s they named further comparators, and they subsequently sought to name more by amendment – Respondents sought to strike out the additional comparators in the ET1s and resisted the applications for permission to amend – Strike-out refused and amendment applications granted.
HELD, dismissing the appeal, that the fact that the further comparators had not been named in the grievance did not mean that the Tribunal was deprived of jurisdiction by section 32(2) of the Employment Act 2002 – Suffolk Mental Health NHS Trust v Hurst [2009] ICR 1011 followed; Brett v Hampshire County Council (UKEAT/0500/08) distinguished
Underhill P J
[2011] UKEAT 0092 – 10 – 1407
Bailii
Employment Act 2002 32(2)
England and Wales
Citing:
Distinguished – Brett and Others v Hampshire County Council EAT 25-Jan-2010
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS: 2002 Act and pre-action requirements
Four points arising out of the application of section 32 of the Employment Act 2002 in a series of related equal pay multiples.
Held: . .
Followed – Aziz v Bethnal Green City Challenge Company Limited CA 25-May-1999
The notice of appeal was served three days late. The Registrar and Morison J refused to extend time, the judge concluding that the explanation for the delay was honest and full, but not acceptable.
Held: Permission to appeal was refused. Sir . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.441842