Enterprise Liverpool Ltd v Jonas & Ors [2009] UKEAT 0112_09_2407 (24 July 2009)

Enterprise Liverpool Ltd v Jonas & Ors [2009] UKEAT 0112_09_2407 (24 July 2009)

Employment Judge had jurisdiction to permit amendment to substitute the correct claimant (recognized union) for individual employees under TUPE regulation 15(1)(c); limitation period does not preclude amendment where original claim was lodged in time and amendment merely corrects claimant identity; balance of injustice and hardship favors allowing amendment.

Citation
[2009] UKEAT 0112_09_2407
Parties
Appellant: Enterprise Liverpool Ltd; Appellant: Cameron Ltd; Respondent: Bramall Construction Ltd; Respondent: UCATT; Respondent: Unite; Respondent: Mr Edwards and others; Respondent: Mr O'Toole and others
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
24 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Claim, TUPE Regulations, Limitation Periods, Substitution of Claimant, Case Management Discretion
Employment Law Labour Law Amendment of Claim TUPE Regulations Limitation Periods Substitution of Claimant Case Management Discretion

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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Enterprise Liverpool Ltd

Appellant

Cameron Ltd

Appellant

Bramall Construction Ltd

Respondent

UCATT

Respondent

Unite

Respondent

Mr Edwards and others

Respondent

Mr O'Toole and others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Employment Judge had jurisdiction to permit amendment to substitute correct claimant under TUPE regulation 15(1)(c)
  2. 2 Whether limitation period precludes amendment
  3. 3 Whether amendment constitutes a new claim or merely corrects claimant identity

Ratio Decidendi

Employment Judge had jurisdiction to permit amendment to substitute the correct claimant (recognized union) for individual employees under TUPE regulation 15(1)(c); limitation period does not preclude amendment where original claim was lodged in time and amendment merely corrects claimant identity; balance of injustice and hardship favors allowing amendment.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Amendment permitted to substitute recognized union as claimant
  • No prejudice to respondents; claim proceeds against them