Trimble & Anor v North Lanarkshire Council & Anor (Equal Pay Act : no sub-topic) [2012] UKEAT 0048_12_2011 (20 November 2012)

Trimble & Anor v North Lanarkshire Council & Anor (Equal Pay Act : no sub-topic) [2012] UKEAT 0048_12_2011 (20 November 2012)

The Tribunal was entitled to refuse the amendment to add the Second Respondent due to the lengthy, unexplained delay by the Claimants' solicitors, the resulting prejudice to the Second Respondent in defending historic claims, and the absence of any error of law or perversity in the Tribunal's discretionary balancing of injustice and hardship.

Citation
[2012] UKEAT 0048_12_2011
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Catherine Trimble; Appellant/claimant: Catriona Thomson; First Respondent/transferor Employer: North Lanarkshire Council; Second Respondent/transferee Employer: North Lanarkshire Leisure Trust
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
20 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision on Amendment to Add Respondent
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Equal Pay, Amendment of Pleadings, TUPE (transfer of Undertakings), Limitation Periods, Discretionary Case Management
Employment Law Labour Law Equal Pay Amendment of Pleadings TUPE (transfer of Undertakings) Limitation Periods Discretionary Case Management

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Catherine Trimble

Appellant/claimant

Catriona Thomson

Appellant/claimant

North Lanarkshire Council

First Respondent/transferor Employer

North Lanarkshire Leisure Trust

Second Respondent/transferee Employer

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision on Amendment to Add Respondent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in refusing to allow amendment to add the Second Respondent under TUPE
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal gave undue weight to delay and insufficient weight to employee protection under TUPE
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal's decision was perverse

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal was entitled to refuse the amendment to add the Second Respondent due to the lengthy, unexplained delay by the Claimants' solicitors, the resulting prejudice to the Second Respondent in defending historic claims, and the absence of any error of law or perversity in the Tribunal's discretionary balancing of injustice and hardship.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order dismissing the appeal