Gabriel v Peninsula Business Services Ltd & Anor (Jurisdictional Points : 2002 Act and pre-action requirements) [2012] UKEAT 0190_11_2302 (23 February 2012)

Gabriel v Peninsula Business Services Ltd & Anor (Jurisdictional Points : 2002 Act and pre-action requirements) [2012] UKEAT 0190_11_2302 (23 February 2012)

The Employment Judge erred in law by finding that the Claimant's employment transferred to the Second Respondent without her knowledge or consent; at common law, such transfer requires express or implied assent, which was absent. Therefore, the Claimant remained employed by the First Respondent throughout the relevant period, and her claims against the First Respondent are not time-barred and may proceed.

Citation
[2012] UKEAT 0190_11_2302
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Ms Gabriel; First Respondent: Peninsula Business Services Ltd; Second Respondent: Taxwise Services Ltd
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
23 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Preliminary Hearing Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Sex Discrimination, Race Discrimination, Transfer of Undertakings, Statutory Grievance Procedures, Jurisdiction, Limitation
Employment Law Discrimination Law Sex Discrimination Race Discrimination Transfer of Undertakings Statutory Grievance Procedures Jurisdiction Limitation

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms Gabriel

Appellant/claimant

Peninsula Business Services Ltd

First Respondent

Taxwise Services Ltd

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Preliminary Hearing Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Claimant's employment transferred from First Respondent to Second Respondent without her knowledge or consent
  2. 2 Whether statutory grievance procedure requirements applied
  3. 3 Whether claims against First Respondent were time-barred

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Judge erred in law by finding that the Claimant's employment transferred to the Second Respondent without her knowledge or consent; at common law, such transfer requires express or implied assent, which was absent. Therefore, the Claimant remained employed by the First Respondent throughout the relevant period, and her claims against the First Respondent are not time-barred and may proceed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Matter remitted to Employment Tribunal for substantive hearing of claims against both Respondents