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 order stood against the new Respondent, but an opportunity was given to that Respondent to apply to the Industrial Tribunal for a review under Rule 11.
Citations:
[1983] ICR 135
Cited by:
Cited – Linbourne v B R Constable (Gatwick Moat House) EAT 9-Feb-1993
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 . .
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: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.276513