Topics

Employment tribunals and courts

New and updated

  • Type:
    FAQs

    What are the likely ramifications for the employer if an employee succeeds in a claim of unfair dismissal?

  • Date:
    21 January 2009
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Grimshaw v Griffin Signs Ltd and others

    The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that an employment tribunal was not wrong to hold that a claim was out of time and there was no continuing act of discrimination. Nor was it wrong not to exercise its discretion to hear the claim on just and equitable grounds.

  • Date:
    19 January 2009
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Lucy and others v British Airways plc

    The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that an employment tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear claims against British Airways for non-payment of flying allowances to cabin crew who had not been able to fly because of an airport closure.

  • Date:
    12 December 2008
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Unfair dismissal: Unambiguous resignation is nearly always effective

    In Ali v Birmingham City Council EAT/0313/08, the EAT held that an employee's unambiguous resignation was effective and could not be unilaterally withdrawn once it had been accepted by the employer. It is only in exceptional circumstances that words of resignation should not be taken at their face value

  • Date:
    24 October 2008
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Sex discrimination: Tribunal's territorial jurisdiction

    In Tradition Securities and Futures SA v X and another EAT/0202/08, the EAT held that, where an employee of a French company had worked in Paris for three years before transferring to the company's London office for two years, and complained of unlawful sex discrimination throughout all five years of her employment, the employment tribunal had jurisdiction to hear only the complaints about her alleged treatment in London.

  • Date:
    29 August 2008
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Collective redundancies: Employer company liable for post-liquidation protective award

    In Haine and another v Day [2008] IRLR 642, the Court of Appeal held that a protective award made after the employer company went into liquidation in respect of its failure to consult before making collective redundancies was a provable, and therefore potentially recoverable, debt.

  • Type:
    Quick reference

    Compensation - fixed-term employees

    A table summarising the compensation payable for breach of the requirements in relation to fixed-term employees.

  • Type:
    Quick reference

    Compensation - part-time workers

    A table summarising the compensation payable for claims of less favourable treatment on grounds of part-time working.

  • Date:
    11 June 2008
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Liability for damages: Employer liable for suicide of employee who suffered workplace injury

    In Corr (administratix of the estate of Thomas Corr (deceased)) v IBC Vehicles Ltd [2008] UKHL 13, the House of Lords held that the employer of a man who was injured at work and, as a consequence, suffered severe depression that led to suicide, was liable under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 for loss attributable to his suicide.

  • Date:
    25 February 2008
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Collective redundancies: Protective award starts at 90 days' pay

    In Hutchins v Permacell Finesse Ltd (in administration) EAT/0350/07, the EAT held that the starting point for determining a protective award is 90 days' pay, even where fewer than 100 redundancies are involved and the minimum consultation period is 30 days.

About this topic

HR and legal information and guidance relating to employment tribunals and courts.