header-logo header-logo

19 February 2009
Issue: 7357 / Categories: Legal News , Terms&conditions , Employment
printer mail-detail

Administration victory

Employment

Employees’ claims should be stayed rather than rejected pending consent from administrators where companies are in administration, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held.

In Unite and Ors v Sayers Confectioners Ltd [2009] UKEAT, the union Unite succeeded in its challenge to place time limits on employees’ claims where the employer company was in administration.

Under the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), the consent of administrators is required for the commencement or continuance of proceedings against a company in administration.

However, most tribunal claims have to be issued within three months, less one day, of the date employees are dismissed.

According to Unite, some employment judges have been taking a literal interpretation of IA 1986, meaning many claims are time-barred.

Unite brought the challenge after Liverpool company Sayers Confectioners Ltd made its employees redundant.

The employees’ claims were rejected on the basis of the Insolvency Act. On appeal, however, the EAT ruled the claims should be stayed.

Issue: 7357 / Categories: Legal News , Terms&conditions , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll