header-logo header-logo

28 November 2008 / Peter Hungerford-welch
Issue: 7347 / Categories: Case law , Tribunals , Law digest , Employment , In Court
printer mail-detail

Employment law

Echendu v William Morrison Supermarkets Plc (EAT, 20 June 2008)

Time for the service of an application under r 3(10) of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993 (SI 1993/2854) runs from when the notification under r 3(7) is sent by the tribunal, not from when it is received by the party. Where the envelope is available, the postmark will constitute authoritative proof of the date of sending. In the absence of the postmarked envelope, an ordinarily prudent person will proceed on the assumption that the letter was sent on the date that it bears.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde Co strengthens energy transition and construction offering with hire of Suriya Ashok

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit appoints rare dual-qualified lawyer to expand Anglo-French private wealth expertise

NEWS
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

back-to-top-scroll