Bates v. Powertech Desing Ltd [2000] EAT 1435_99_2711 (27 November 2000)
The tribunal erred in law by failing to find, on uncontested evidence, that the appellant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and by inadequately addressing whether it was just and equitable to extend time for the late claim, given the appellant's actions and correspondence with the DTI and Citizens Advice Bureau.
- Citation
- [2000] EAT 1435_99_2711
- Parties
- Appellant: Mr Brian Bates; Respondent: Powertech Design Limited
- Jurisdiction
- United Kingdom
- Judgment Date
- 27 November 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision
- Outcome
- appeal allowed; case remitted for rehearing
- Legal Topics
- Redundancy Payment, Dismissal, Limitation Periods, Employment Rights Act 1996
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mr Brian Bates
Appellant
Powertech Design Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant was dismissed by reason of redundancy
- 2 Whether the claim for redundancy payment was made within the statutory time limits or if it was just and equitable to extend time
Ratio Decidendi
The tribunal erred in law by failing to find, on uncontested evidence, that the appellant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and by inadequately addressing whether it was just and equitable to extend time for the late claim, given the appellant's actions and correspondence with the DTI and Citizens Advice Bureau.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed; case remitted for rehearing
Orders
- The appeal is allowed.
- The case is remitted to the employment tribunal for rehearing.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment