Corporate and Business Law Assignment 2012

Only available on StudyMode
  • Topic: Court, Employment Tribunal, Employment Appeal Tribunal
  • Pages : 7 (2577 words )
  • Download(s) : 182
  • Published : March 28, 2013
Open Document
Text Preview
Table of Contents
Introduction2
Proceedings2
The evidence3
Precedents set by tribunals6
Conclusion6

Corporate & Business Law
Introduction
An Employment Tribunal would hear claims regarding matters to do with employment. These could include unfair dismissal, discrimination and redundancy payments. An employment tribunal is similar to a court but it is not as formal and it must act independently. These are commonly open to the public. Employment tribunals are independent judicial bodies who help determine disputes between employees and employers about their employment rights. The tribunal I chose to view and write this report on is an employment tribunal, that involved the claimant putting forward a case of unfair dismissal and breach of contract that was based on the fact that she felt she was unfairly dismissed while carrying out her duties that were set to her by her employer (Dr Monoghon). * Less formal than other court proceedings.

* Lower costs.
* Benefit of tribunal is they can choose to represent themselves. * Lay members specialise in their area of expertise regarding the case.

Below are details of the claimant, defendant, time, date and venue.

The Case
Unfair Dismissal and breach of contract
Venue: Croydon Tribunals
Date: 13th November 2012
Time: 10:00am – 16:00pm
Defendant: Dr Hester Monoghan
Claimant: Ms Davidson
Evidence: 8 minutes Audio recording
After Ms Davidson was dismissed from her job, she later received a call from the nanny agency that she was working for, stating that they had been informed by the police that of an allegation of child abuse by herself on the children. She was then refused to be represented by the agency as they did not want to put forward her name as it would reflect badly on the agency as she had a case on going against her. This prevented her from finding work and therefore was out of work for a period of five months. Ms Davidson opened this case up against the defendant as she feels she unfairly dismissed and had a bad reputation in regards to her occupation. She therefore wanted to be reimbursed for the loss of the work she missed out on and also wanted to clear her name regarding this issue. Proceedings

Upon entering the tribunal room, the judge was seated front centred facing both parties involved in the case, the parties involved were Miss Davidson the claimant, her representative Peter Mathews, seated next to her and parallel to her on the left hand side were the respondents Dr Monoghan and Mr Monoghan. Once entered the judge introduced her and then allowed the defendant and claimant a chance to introduce themselves, preceded by giving defendant an opportunity to provide a brief history of the events which had taken place. Dr Monoghan believed that the claimant had not been fulfilling her duties properly and was in breach of the employment contract as it had come to the Monoghans attention that she was using foul words in front of her children, which the children had picked up and started to use whilst in the home environment. Dr and Mr Monoghan did not approve of this and believed that the claimant had been lying about taking her kids to activities and used to say she did in the diary that had been prescribed to the claimant. For this reason she felt she had to take the situation in to her own hand and therefore had her husband put in place voice recording measures in an open plan kitchen/living/dining room. On 8th March 2012 they made an eight hour recording of Ms Davidson’s shift at her house. This was broken in to segments totalling a twenty minute recroding. After listening to the audio recording they felt that they had “reasonable grounds to believe that Miss Davidson was verbally abusive and showed a lack of empathy and lovingness towards her children. The evidence

The judge then gave Dr Monoghan a chance to play the evidence that had been produced but Mr Monoghan then intervened and then asked the judge “Is it...
tracking img