Tom Webb successful in the EAT
9th December 2019
Judgment has been handed down by the EAT in Caterham School Ltd v Rose [2019] 8 WLUK 277; UKEAT/0149/19/RN.
3PB’s Tom Webb appeared for the successful Appellant. The decision concerns the extent to which, at a preliminary hearing on time limits, a tribunal is able to make findings as to conduct continuing over a period.
Related News
-
In Raison v DF Capital Bank Limited & Others [EA 2024 000292] Joseph England (pictured here) was successful before the EAT in having the appeal dismissed. The EAT agreed with Joseph’s argument that time spent in ACAS EC prior to limitation starting is not added on to the end of the limitation period. The appeal arose in the context of the Claimant having issued a claim for unfair dismissal due to having allegedly raised a...
Continue reading -
Head of 3PB's Employment and Discrimination Law Group Karen Moss (pictured here) has successfully acted in the following high-profile cases: In Selivanov v Reckitt Benckiser Corporate Services Limited KB-2025-001253, Karen successfully sought an interim injunction preventing the summary dismissal of an employee accused of gross misconduct, in circumstances where his immigration status would have been imperilled if he had been summarily dismissed. The Applicant would be eligible to apply for indefinite leave to remain from August 2025,...
Continue reading -
Karen Moss, Head of 3PB's Employment and Discrimination Group, spoke on the panel at Birmingham Law Society’s Question Time event, hosted by No.5 Chambers. The event was targeted at all employment professionals including employment lawyers and those in HR. It dived into the details surrounding the Employment Rights Bill 2024 and its potential implications. The panellists spoke about different aspects of the proposed Bill. Karen focussed on the far-reaching proposals regarding Zero Hours and Low...
Continue reading -
Employment law specialist Alex Leonhardt (pictured here) appeared in the Employment Appeal Tribunal this spring in Kokomane v Boots [2025] EAT 38, the judgment of which has recently been published. Alex represented the Respondent at both the final hearing and at appeal. The case concerned the proper interpretation of s.27(2) of the Equality Act 2010 in order to determine whether statements made were protected acts, in circumstances where there was not evidence of a clear...
Continue reading
