In the recent case of Mehta V, University of London and others [2006], the applicant was a doctor, to the second of those for medical education at the August 8, 2003. The second of those was a body within the University of London (the first of respondents). On October 6, the applicant has received a letter from the second defendant on 2 October. The letter stated that his application was not successful. The plaintiff claimed that he returned on 12 December to ask for detailed feedback, why he was not authorized to determine whether it is a legal claim against the respondents. He received no answer, and the second of the respondents claimed that no such letter has been received.
The applicant of the original application was forwarded to the Employment Tribunal on 13 January 2004 - he claims, discrimination and victimization. On 17 January, the Employment Tribunal dismissed the claim verbally on the grounds that they were submitted after the three month period. The Employment Tribunal also said it would not meet the deadline. In addition to a full hearing on 4 March, it was as if the other information by the applicant should Struck by the Employment Tribunal is not in their jurisdiction to hear. Finally, in the full hearing, the Employment Tribunal ruled against the plaintiff - who promptly stormed out of the room.
Those respondents who submitted an application for costs. The court declined to make the cost for use in the absence of the applicant, is interrupted and the case until 20 May as was the case to be heard, one of the laity, which was on 17 and 4 was absent, and the applicant was not happy to proceed with only two members.
A new member has to submit the Employment Tribunal and oral and written evidence from both sides, as well as an oral witness statements and evidence from the applicant.
The Employment Tribunal found that the costs of the hearing on 4 and 20 Candidates were inappropriate behavior, his remaining claims, which were both wrong and inappropriate. The applicant appealed to the Employment Appeals Tribunal.
His appeal was dismissed for the following reasons:
* For the purposes of the three-month period, the time ran from the date of the act of discrimination or victimization. The act of the applicant to view the allegation was the failure of respondents to list an item for him in training. This happened at the latest by 6 October, when he and the letter refusing him. Since the original application was forwarded to the Employment Tribunal on 13 only January, the deadline was missed and the Employment Tribunal has not erred in the application of treatment than the time.
* It was clear that the Employment Tribunal has not in accordance with the claim. They decided that in the interest of the overall objective should be a new set to join in the elimination of problems before they are fairly and expeditiously. The new Employment Tribunal heard extensive and new contributions from the applicant. This meant it was not inappropriate, when applied to questions of fact in connection with the March meeting, although the Employment Tribunal is composed of only two of the three original members.
© RT Coopers, 2006. This background information is not a comprehensive or complete statement of the law on the issues can not be considered legal advice. It is only on general issues. Specialist legal advice should always be sought in relation to the particular circumstances.
Media Law & employment law firm advising media and entertainment industry films, TV, Television, Music lawyers, attorneys Media, Entertainment Lawyers Media Contract, Employment solicitors, employment law, employment lawyers, employment law firm, Redundancies, Unfair dismissals, BREACH OF CONTRACT, disputes in the workplace, TUPE Transfers, Drafting Employment Contracts, complaint procedures, disciplinary procedures, maternity rights, discrimination, Employment Disputes, suspensions, wrongful dismissal, Equal Pay, Media Copyright.
0 ความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น