Arriva London South Ltd v Nicolaou
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Date | 2012 |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
5 cases
-
South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service v Mr D Mansell and Others
...neither side contended that it was wrongly decided.” (Paragraph 21) E Working Time Claims 32. F In Arriva London South Ltd v Nicolaou [2012] ICR 510, the complaint was in form of the present case, namely “working time detriment” under section 45A. The issue on the appeal concerned causation......
-
Mrs J Climer-Jones v Cardiff and Vale University Local Health Board: 1600772/2016
...the same as a “but for” test, see as put by HHJ Peter Clark in the case of Arriva London South Ltd v Nicolaou (2011) UKEAT/0293/11/RN, [2012] ICR 510 “28 The reason why question must not be confused with the 'but for' test . . . . In short, whereas the but for test may be appropriate in 'cr......
-
Mr S Gale and Others v Mid and West Wales Fire Service
...been done “on grounds of” one of the prohibited reasons. It reminded itself of the EAT’s decision in Arriva London South Ltd v Nicolaou [2012] ICR 510, laying down an approach akin to protected disclosure detriment and discrimination victimisation cases. It further noted that the burden of ......
-
Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust v M Wyeth
...why” question, which is not the same as a “but for” test, see as put by HHJ Peter Clark in the case of Arriva London South Ltd v Nicolaou [2012] ICR 510: “28. The reason why question must not be confused with the “but for” test. … In whereas the but for test may be appropriate in “criterion......
Request a trial to view additional results