Bleuse v MBT Transport Ltd and Tiefenbacher

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
Neutral CitationUKEAT/632/06 ,[2007] UKEAT 0339_07_2112
Year2007
Date2007
CourtEmployment Appeal Tribunal
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
38 cases
  • Wallis v Ministry of Defence
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 8 March 2011
    ...under the Equal Treatment Directive (76/207/EEC), as consolidated and updated in 2006/54/EC (the Directive). She relies on Bleuse v MBT Transport Ltd [2008] ICR 488 and Duncombe v Department of Education and Skills [2010] ICR 815, in which the judgment of the Supreme Court is pending, for t......
  • Pervez v Macquarie Bank Ltd (London Branch) and Another
    • United Kingdom
    • Employment Appeal Tribunal
    • Invalid date
  • Clyde & Company Llp and Another v Krista Bates Van Winkelhof
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 26 September 2012
    ...that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear these EU derived employment claims by analogy with the approach of the EAT in Bleuse v MBT Transport Limited [2008] ICR 488 which was followed by the Court of Appeal in the Wallis case. The submission arguably involves an extension of the Bleuse p......
  • Mrs A Beldica v The British Council: 2202073/2021
    • United Kingdom
    • Employment Tribunal
    • 7 January 2023
    ...in the ERA (in this case s.94(1) and s.135 ERA) – see Lawson v Serco Ltd 2006 ICR 250, HL at [14], Bleuse v MBT Transport Ltd and anor 2008 ICR 488, EAT and British Council v Jeffery and another case 2019 ICR 929, 86. The current version of the ERA does contain any provisions dealing with t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • The Territorial Scope of Employment Legislation and Choice of Law
    • United Kingdom
    • Wiley The Modern Law Review No. 75-5, September 2012
    • 1 September 2012
    ...the airline’s ‘permanent basings policy’.Allthree employees claimed that they had been unfairly dismissed. The question7ibid at [55].8 [2008] ICR 488 (EAT).9ibid at [43].10 ERA 1996, s 196(2) and (3).11 s 196(1).12 s 196(4) and (5).13 s 196(7).14 Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT