Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The EAT noted that applications to adjourn should be considered carefully but that in the particular circumstances of this case, it was not an error to proceed with the hearing. The appeal was dismissed.
When the present claim was initiated, the employer was in breach of its s.1 duty. That duty had continued even after the employee had left employment (section 2(6) ERA 1996 ) and applied even though the second period of employment had not continued for 2 months. The Tribunal found in the Claimant's favour on one aspect of his claim. The Tribunal had been entitled to make the award.
The Judge then went on to identify that there were issues about the hours which the Claimant worked and the terms of a contract which the Respondent asserted he had provided to the Claimant.
The Tribunal does not have to make such an award if it considers that it would be unjust or inequitable to do so.
Mr Iqbal stated that he fully accepted that and took, as I understood his submissions, no point in relation to that statement of law.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.