All items: Tribunal and court procedure

• expand

  Dehaney v Brent Mind and another [2003] All ER (D) 444 (Oct) CA (1 report relating to this case)

  • Case round-up: indirectly discriminatory pay schemes; and agreeing to a reduced tribunal panel

    Date:

    18 November 2003

    Case round-up from Eversheds, covering: indirectly discriminatory pay schemes; and agreeing to a reduced tribunal panel.

• expand

  Dodd v British Telecom plc [1988] IRLR 16 EAT (1 report relating to this case)

  • Discrimination complaint need only specify minimum particulars

    Date:

    1 January 1988

    In Dodd v British Telecom plc (12.3.87) EOR17B, the EAT rules that a discrimination complaint is "presented", so as to stop the time limit from running, when it is received by the industrial tribunal and that in order to be a valid complaint the originating application need only be in writing, contain sufficient to identify who is making it and against whom it is made, and contain sufficient to show what sort of complaint.

• expand

  Edmondson v BMI Healthcare and another [2002] All ER (D) 387 (Nov) EAT (1 report relating to this case)

  • Points of procedure

    Date:

    18 April 2003

    A review of recent significant cases on practice and procedure in employment tribunals and the EAT.

• expand

  Gaurilcikiene v Tesco Stores Ltd EAT/0209/12 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Case round-up

    Date:

    1 July 2013

    David Malamatenios is a partner, and Colin Makin, Krishna Santra, Sandra Martins and Melissa Powys-Rodrigues are solicitors at Colman Coyle Solicitors. They round up the latest rulings.

• expand

  Greene v London Borough of Hackney EAT/1182/98 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Points of procedure 1: Time limits, directions and settlement

    Date:

    15 March 2000

    This is the first of two articles rounding up recent case law on employment tribunal and EAT practice and procedure.

• expand

  Hak v St Christopher's Fellowship [2016] IRLR 342 EAT (1 report relating to this case)

  • Case round-up

    Date:

    27 January 2016

    Amanda Steadman is a professional support lawyer, Iain Naylor, Lucy Sorell and Rachael Wake are associates, and Jessica-Alice Curtis is a trainee solicitor at Addleshaw Goddard LLP. They round up the latest rulings.

• expand

  Harris (personal representative of Andrews deceased) v Lewisham & Guy's Mental Health NHS Trust [2000] IRLR 320 CA (2 reports relating to this case)

  • Claim survives death

    Date:

    1 May 2000

    In Harris (representative of Andrews) v Lewisham & Guy's Mental Health NHS Trust EOR91C, the Court of Appeal rules that a complaint brought under the discrimination statutes survives the death of the complainant.

  • Race discrimination: Complaint of unlawful discrimination can survive complainant's death

    Date:

    15 April 2000

    In Harris v Lewisham & Guy's Mental Health Trust, the Court of Appeal holds that a complaint brought under the Race Relations Act 1976 could survive the death of the complainant.

• expand

  Hart v English Heritage EAT/0055/06 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Points of procedure

    Date:

    4 August 2006

    IRS Employment Review looks at decisions on procedural points that have arisen in the EAT and Court of Appeal in the time since its last procedural round-up in December 2005.

• expand

  Her Majesty's Attorney General v Deman EAT/0113/06 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Case round-up: Restriction of proceedings order

    Date:

    26 September 2006

    This week's case round-up from Eversheds, covering tribunal orders restricting individuals from bringing claims.

• expand

  Her Majesty's Attorney General v Iteshi EAT/0435/13 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Serial litigant who brought 30 employment cases in four years banned from tribunal claims

    Date:

    8 October 2014

    In DLA Piper's latest case report, the Employment Appeal Tribunal granted a restriction of proceedings order preventing the submission of any further claims for an indefinite period against a claimant who brought repeated claims in employment tribunals, most of which were hopeless or vexatious.