June 2008
Employers Law;Jun2008, p8
Trade Publication
The article focuses on the rulings on employment-related cases in Great Britain. In Forces One Utilities versus Hatfield, the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) held that it is appropriate to strike out a response when the employer's main witness threatens the claimant at the tribunal. In Kuzel versus Roche, the Court of Appeal has considered the burden of proof in whistleblowing cases and held that it is for the employer to prove that it had a potentially fair reason for dismissing an employee.


Related Articles

  • Kirklees Metropolitan Council v Radecki.  // Employers Law;Jun2009, p8 

    The article discusses the appellate case Kirklees Metropolitan Council versus Radecki in England in which the appellant brought unfailr dismissal claim. Radecki and the council failed to reach a binding agreement and he was terminated on October 31, 2006. The tribunal rejected the unfair...

  • ONE TO WATCH.  // Employers Law;Dec2009/Jan2010, p9 

    The article reports that the decision of the British Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) on the case Lyons v. Mitie Security will be published in December 2009. The case focused on an employer's refusal to grant an employee's request for holiday. The EAT will decide on whether a dismissal claim may...

  • IN FOCUS.  // Employers Law;Jun2009, p9 

    The article offers an overview of two court cases related to labor law in Great Britain. The Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) ruled in the case Bournemouth University versus Buckland that the usage of a range of reasonable responses test should be prohibited when making a decision on whether an...

  • IS TUPE A SAFETY NET OR A TRICKY ACT TO FOLLOW? Cole, Kelly // People Management;1/10/2008, Vol. 14 Issue 1, p20 

    The article examines the Transfer of Undertakings (Tupe) decision on the case Power versus Regent Security Services Ltd., and its implications for employers in Great Britain. which involved an employee transferred under Tupe who had agreed to change his contractual retirement age from 60 to 65....

  • IN BRIEF.  // Employers Law;Jul/Aug2009, p8 

    This section offers news briefs on labor cases in Great Britain. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has upheld a ruling that allows a disability discrimination claim brought outside the three-month time limit. In another case, the EAT ruled that a tribunal could use its discretion to extend...

  • IN BRIEF.  // Employers Law;Mar2011, p8 

    This section presents news briefs concerning court cases involving employment regulations in Great Britain. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruled in favor of the plaintiff in Bridgewater Paper Company v Hillyer and another. The EAT decided against the Royal Navy in the Ministry of Defence...

  • CASEWATCH.  // Employers Law;Feb2007, p11 

    The article discusses the rulings of the British Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) over several cases. EAT ruled that employers should consider alternative employment opportunities or delay the dismissal of an employee suffering form a work-related illness. EAT has also considered employees'...

  • Radecki v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council. Williams, Kate // Employers Law;Oct2008, p8 

    The article discusses the ruling of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) of Great Britain on Radecki v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (MBC) in West Yorkshire, England. Radecki was a teacher employed by Kirklees MBC who was suspended while concerns about his performance were investigated....

  • When do overseas workers have employment rights in the UK? Paz, Melissa // Employers Law;Sep2015, p17 

    The article discusses two court cases dealing with the issue of whether overseas workers have employment rights in Great Britain. In Lodge vs. Dignity and Choice in Dying, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) examined the rights of remote workers under the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA). In...


Read the Article


Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics