header-logo header-logo

14 August 2008
Issue: 7334 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , Employment
printer mail-detail

Employment law

Wilmot v Selvarajan [2008] EWCA Civ 862, [2008] All ER (D) 310 (Jul)

The employees argued that there had been unreasonable delay on the part of the employer in relation to the standard dismissal and disciplinary procedure. They argued that the delay meant that the procedure has not been completed for the purposes of s 98A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, rendering the dismissals automatically unfair.

HELD The question whether the procedure has been completed must be addressed before the question of noncompliance with the general requirements of the procedure. If the procedure has been completed, the question whether there has been non-compliance with those general requirements never arises.

Completion of the procedure is not conditional on compliance with the general requirements. All the prescribed steps in the applicable procedure may therefore be completed, even if there has been non-compliance with other procedural requirements, such as the timetabling standards.

Issue: 7334 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , Employment
printer mail-details

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