This is a preview. To continue reading please log in or Register to read this article

Points of procedure

This report relates to 25 case(s)

  • expand disabled

    Andreou v Lord Chancellor's Department EAT/36/01, EAT/37/01 (0 other reports)

  • expand disabled

    Arnold v Barnfield College EAT (0 other reports)

  • expand disabled

    Barry Controls Ltd v Lawes [2001] All ER (D) 266 (Jul) EAT (0 other reports)

  • expand disabled

    Clarke v Arriva Kent Thameside Ltd [2001] All ER (D) 485 (Jul) EAT (0 other reports)

  • expand disabled

    Consignia plc v Sealy [2002] IRLR 624 CA (0 other reports)

  • expand disabled

    Coxon v Rank Xerox UK Ltd [2002] All ER (D) 169 (Apr) EAT (0 other reports)

  • expand disabled

    Devenney v Initial Deborah Services Ltd EAT/137/01 (0 other reports)

  • expand disabled

    Dispatch Management Services (UK) Ltd v Douglas and others [2002] IRLR 389 EAT (0 other reports)

  • expand disabled

    Exile Productions Ltd and Morrison v Braddock EAT/1079/01 (0 other reports)

  • expand disabled

    Firstcity Insurance Brokers Ltd v Jones EAT/897/00 (0 other reports)

  • expand disabled

    Ganase v Kent Community Housing Trust [2001] All ER (D) 07 (Jul) EAT (0 other reports)

  • expand disabled

    Gardiner v VAW Motorcast [2001] All ER (D) 79 (Aug) EAT (0 other reports)

  • expand disabled

    Gee v Shell UK Ltd [2002] All ER (D) 27 (Jan) EAT (0 other reports)

  • expand disabled

    Goldman Sachs Services Ltd v Montali EAT/1203/01 (0 other reports)

  • expand disabled

    HM Prison Service v Gundill EAT/1375/00 (0 other reports)

  • expand

    Knight v Department of Social Security [2002] IRLR 249 EAT (2 other reports)

    • Employers should not count on confidentiality

      Date:
      28 May 2002

      EAT rules employment tribunals must exercise discretion when employers claim confidential material cannot be presented. By Alison Hollingsworth, associate in the Employment Rights and Benefits Group at Bristows.

    • Case roundup: Disability discrimination and holiday pay

      Date:
      23 April 2002

      This week's case roundup, covering discovery of tests undertaken by disabled candidates in a recruitment process and the calculation of holiday pay.

  • expand disabled

    Knight v London Central Bus Co Ltd EAT/443/00 (0 other reports)

  • expand disabled

    Macaulay v Hackney London Borough [2002] All ER (D) 277 (Jan) EAT (0 other reports)

  • expand disabled

    Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Haringey v Akpan EAT/974/00 (0 other reports)

  • expand disabled

    Morgan v Brith Gof Cyf [2000] All ER (D) 2540 EAT (0 other reports)

  • expand disabled

    Neckles v Yorkshire Rider Ltd (t/a First Huddersfield) [2001] All ER (D) 401 (Feb) EAT (0 other reports)

  • expand disabled

    Oakley v Kvaerner Redpath Engineering Services Ltd [2001] All ER (D) 157 (Apr) EAT (0 other reports)

  • expand disabled

    Pendragon plc v Nota [2002] All ER (D) 74 (Apr) EAT (0 other reports)

  • expand disabled

    Quaglinos Restaurant Ltd v Ms Hamilton-Freed EAT 594/01 (0 other reports)

  • expand disabled

    Skinners Hastings Ltd v Wilkin EAT/1023/00 (0 other reports)

Since 16 July 2001, employment tribunals have had an "overriding objective" to deal with cases justly (reg. 10(1) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2001) ("the 2001 ET Rules") (see Employment tribunals and the EAT: revised rules of procedure ). Tribunals must give effect to this overriding objective in exercising any of their powers under the ET Rules and in interpreting any of them, and the parties are expected to assist the tribunals in furthering this objective. In this selection of recent cases on practice and procedure in the employment tribunals and EAT, we see how this overriding objective is already beginning to take shape.