When considering an application for reconsideration as per rule 70 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, the "interests of justice" test

Under section 100(1)(d) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, an employee must believe they face serious and imminent danger in the workplace

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruled in favour of the claimant, asserting he was indeed an employee, even though he was a registered Construction Industry Scheme (CIS) contractor

If evidence suggests possible discrimination, an employment tribunal must carefully consider the burden of proof, and not simply proceed directly to the primary reason for the alleged discriminatory act

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld the decision that the claimant, a doctor who refused to address transgender individuals by their chosen gender based on his Christian beliefs, had not been discriminated against

Application of Acas Code: A dismissal can be subject to the Acas Code if an employer believes there are issues related to misconduct or poor performance

The power to strike out a claim or response under rule 37(1)(b) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 can be invoked due to unreasonable conduct in proceedings

When determining if relief should be granted from an unless order per rule 38(2) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, actions that don't achieve material compliance should still be considered

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) determined that the original tribunal failed to adequately address the primary concerns of the claimant regarding her dismissal

The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the claimant's appeal against the initial decision of the Employment Judge (EJ). The main contention was

The Employment Tribunal (ET) made an error in its judgment concerning the Appellant's claims of victimisation and direct disability discrimination

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) dismissed the claimant's appeal, determining that the Employment Tribunal's (ET) conduct and conclusions were both fair and

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that the Employment Tribunal (ET) was correct in its judgment that the respondent's interim CEO had taken the definitive decision to

The EAT found that the Employment Judge had wrongly struck out the case. Whilst witnesses are not allowed to speak about their evidence when under oath, here