Items with the keyword without_prejudice
- Basra v BJSS Ltd UKEAT/0090/17/DAAppeal against a ruling by the ET that a without prejudice offer made by the employer to terminate the employment on certain terms was inadmissible evidence when considering whether the Claimant had been dismissed or had resigned. Appeal allowed and remitted to the same ET.(21/12/2017) • case • CPD: 0/0 mins
- Graham v Agilitas IT Solutions Ltd UKEAT/0212/17/DAAppeal against a Preliminary Hearing Judgment holding that a number of discussions during meetings held on a without prejudice basis between the Claimant and the CEO of the Respondent prior to the termination of his employment were protected pursuant to section 111A(1) Employment Rights Act 1996 and/or under the common law without prejudice rule. Appeal allowed and remitted to the same ET.(23/11/2017) • case • CPD: 0/0 mins
- Parties can share details of judicial assessment with AcasIssue discussed at National User Group meeting(21/11/2016) • news • CPD: 0/0 mins
- Faithorn Farrell Timms LLP v Bailey UKEAT/0025/16/RNRespondent's appeal, and Claimant's cross-appeal, against a judgment concerning the admissibility of certain documents which the Respondent alleged were "without prejudice" and therefore inadmissible before the ET. Appeal and cross-appeal allowed in part.(04/07/2016) • case • CPD: 0/0 mins
- Portnykh v Nomura International Plc UKEAT/0448/13/LAAppeal against a ruling that correspondence marked ‘without prejudice’ should be admissible in evidence at the ET. Appeal allowed.(22/01/2014) • case • CPD: 0/30 mins
- A v B & C UKEAT/0092/13/RNAppeal against a decision by the EJ that particular communications between the two respondents came within the ‘without prejudice' rule and were therefore immune from production. Appeal allowed in part.(03/07/2013) • case • CPD: 0/0 mins
- Bloxwich Fencing Ltd v Banks UKEAT/0469/09/DMAppeal against a judgment of the ET that the claimant had been unfairly constructively dismissed and had not failed to mitigate his losses. The respondent claimed that the grievance was raised in without prejudice discussions and thus did not comply with the now repealed Section 32 of the Employment Act 2002. However, this point had been conceded in the ET when the case of Arnold Clark Automobiles v Stewart had been brought to the attention of the respondent. The EAT ruled that the ET therefore had not erred in deciding that the grievance satisfied the statutory grievance procedures. Alleged failure by the claimant to mitigate his losses was also rejected by the EAT. Appeal dismissed.(30/09/2010) • case • CPD: 0/0 mins
- Woodward v Santander UK Plc (Formerly Abbey National Plc) UKEAT/0250/09/ZTAppeal against decision by ET that the claimant had not been victimised or discriminated against. In particular, the Tribunal ruled that the claimant could not use evidence which formed part of ‘without prejudice’ negotiations, nor could she amend her claim form to introduce an actual comparator to help in her discrimination claim as none had been referred to in previous proceedings. Appeal dismissed.(26/05/2010) • case • CPD: 0/30 mins
8 items
