*/
Employment – Practice and procedure. The employee and his colleague (the co-claimant) alleged unfair dismissal against their employer. The claims were dismissed. The employment tribunal dismissed the employee's application for an extension of the time to present his notice of appeal, in circumstances where he had not included the ET1 and ET3 forms of the co-claimant. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, dismissing the employee's appeal, ruled that the time limited by r 3(3) of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993, SI 1993/2854, for serving the documents necessary for the proper institution of an appeal, started to run when an employment tribunal sent out a judgment and written reasons even though it had been wrongly addressed. Further, where two cases involving two different claimants were heard together, the two cases constituted the 'proceedings' for the purposes of r 3(1) of the Rules, and even if only one claimant proposed to appeal, r 3(1)(b) required the prospective appellant to either serve the ET1 form and ET3 forms in the co-claimant's case or give an explanation for not doing so. An appeal would not be properly instituted where neither step had been taken.
Employment – Practice and procedure. The employee and his colleague (the co-claimant) alleged unfair dismissal against their employer. The claims were dismissed. The employment tribunal dismissed the employee's application for an extension of the time to present his notice of appeal, in circumstances where he had not included the ET1 and ET3 forms of the co-claimant. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, dismissing the employee's appeal, ruled that the time limited by r 3(3) of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993, SI 1993/2854, for serving the documents necessary for the proper institution of an appeal, started to run when an employment tribunal sent out a judgment and written reasons even though it had been wrongly addressed. Further, where two cases involving two different claimants were heard together, the two cases constituted the 'proceedings' for the purposes of r 3(1) of the Rules, and even if only one claimant proposed to appeal, r 3(1)(b) required the prospective appellant to either serve the ET1 form and ET3 forms in the co-claimant's case or give an explanation for not doing so. An appeal would not be properly instituted where neither step had been taken.
Now is the time to tackle inappropriate behaviour at the Bar as well as extend our reach and collaboration with organisations and individuals at home and abroad
A comparison – Dan Monaghan, Head of DWF Chambers, invites two viewpoints
And if not, why not? asks Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Marie Law, Head of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, discusses the many benefits of oral fluid drug testing for child welfare and protection matters
To mark International Women’s Day, Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management looks at how financial planning can help bridge the gap
Casey Randall of AlphaBiolabs answers some of the most common questions regarding relationship DNA testing for court
Maria Scotland and Niamh Wilkie report from the Bar Council’s 2024 visit to the United Arab Emirates exploring practice development opportunities for the England and Wales family Bar
Marking Neurodiversity Week 2025, an anonymous barrister shares the revelations and emotions from a mid-career diagnosis with a view to encouraging others to find out more
David Wurtzel analyses the outcome of the 2024 silk competition and how it compares with previous years, revealing some striking trends and home truths for the profession
Save for some high-flyers and those who can become commercial arbitrators, it is generally a question of all or nothing but that does not mean moving from hero to zero, says Andrew Hillier
