Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School, UEA, tracks Augustine v Data Cars, which rejects reading a ‘solely’ requirement into the Part-time Workers Regulations and restores broader protection than the underlying directive.
His briefing also highlights a warning on whistleblowing interim relief: tribunals cannot dismiss an application merely because facts are contested, but must still assess whether the claimant has a ‘pretty good chance’ of success.
On limitation, the EAT confirms that merits and lack of prejudice may matter, but they do not displace the need to weigh every relevant factor.
Finally, an ET1 need not fail just because a claimant changed name after early conciliation: a name mismatch can be an ‘error’ capable of correction where rejecting the claim would not serve justice.
