header-logo header-logo

Employment Law

22 January 2009
Issue: 7353 / Categories: Case law , Practice areas , Law digest , Employment
printer mail-detail

Switalski v F&C Asset Management Plc [2009] All ER (D) 06 (Jan)

It is exceptional to send a remitted hearing back to the same tribunal. However, in the case of a review on the ground of fresh evidence (r 34(3) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2004 (SI 2004/1861)), even though such a review does not have to take place before the same tribunal that reached the original decision, it is likely to be sent back to the same tribunal to see whether the fresh evidence makes any difference to that tribunal’s earlier conclusions.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Kate Gaskell, Flex Legal

NLJ Career Profile: Kate Gaskell, Flex Legal

Kate Gaskell, CEO of Flex Legal, reflects on chasing her childhood dreams underscores the importance of welcoming those from all backgrounds into the profession

Dorsey & Whitney—Jonathan Christy

Dorsey & Whitney—Jonathan Christy

Dispute resolution team welcomes associate in London

Winckworth Sherwood—Kevin McManamon

Winckworth Sherwood—Kevin McManamon

Special education needs and mental capacity expert joins as partner

NEWS
Overcrowded prisons, mental health hospitals and immigration centres are failing to meet international and domestic human rights standards, the National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) has warned
Two speedier and more streamlined qualification routes have been launched for probate and conveyancing professionals
Workplace stress was a contributing factor in almost one in eight cases before the employment tribunal last year, indicating its endemic grip on the UK workplace
In Ward v Rai, the High Court reaffirmed that imprecise points of dispute can and will be struck out. Writing in NLJ this week, Amy Dunkley of Bolt Burdon Kemp reports on the decision and its implications for practitioners
Could the Supreme Court’s ruling in R v Hayes; R v Palombo unintentionally unsettle future complex fraud trials? Maia Cohen-Lask of Corker Binning explores the question in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll