Claim strike-out was wrong decision
The EAT has held that a tribunal had been wrong to strike out a claim as having no reasonable prospects of success at a pre-hearing review. The EAT in this case recognises that, although the rules for strike-outs were amended in 2001 so as to be less rigorous, tribunals should not be overzealous in striking out a case as having no reasonable prospects unless the facts as alleged by the claimant disclose no arguable case in law.
Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust
Breach of employer’s disciplinary code is evidence of race discrimination
In Aziz v Crown Prosecution Service, the Court of Appeal held that the employment tribunal was correct to infer that discrimination on racial grounds had occurred where the employer had breached its own code in relation to disciplinary hearings, and the employer could not give a satisfactory explanation of why the breaches had occurred.
Tribunal can hear post-employment detriment claim
An employee who suffered a detriment for making a protected disclosure could rely on the whistleblowing provisions in the Employment Rights Act 1996 even though the detriment occurred after her employment had terminated. This Court of Appeal decision overrules an earlier one in which it had held that the whistleblowing provisions only protect workers against a detriment suffered while in employment.
Woodward v Abbey National plc
Extension of time limit
The statutory grievance procedures automatically extend the original time limit for presenting a tribunal claim by three months. In such cases, the extended time limit starts on the day after the day the original time limit ends. So, an employee whose normal time limit for bringing an unfair dismissal claim expired on 19 September 2005 had until 20 December 2005 to present a valid claim.
Singh t/a Rainbow International v Taylor
By Joe Glavina, legal director, and Phil Williams, associate, Addleshaw Goddard
Comments are closed.