Powerhouse Retail Ltd v Burroughs; Preston and Others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and Others (No 3)

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
Year2004
Date2004
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
7 cases
  • Powerhouse Retail Ltd v Burroughs; Preston and Others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and Others (No 3)
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 8 Marzo 2006
    ...claims were the subject of a series of test cases under what has been described as the Preston litigation: see Preston and others v Wolverhampton Healthcare N H S Trust and others [1998] ICR 227 (HL), Preston and others v Wolverhampton Healthcare N H S Trust and others ( Case C-78/98) [200......
  • Copple and Others v Littlewoods Plc and Others
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 8 Noviembre 2011
    ...extremely complex. They are summarised admirably by HH Judge McMullen QC in the EAT in Preston v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust No. 3 [2004] ICR 993 and are reproduced in paragraph 13 of the EAT decision below. For the purposes of this appeal, it is necessary to focus only on a limited ......
  • Powerhouse Retail Ltd v Burroughs; Preston and Others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and Others (No 3)
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 7 Octubre 2004
    ...Ltd and Midlands Electricity plc, against part of the judgment of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (Judge McMullen, QC, sitting alone) ( (2004) ICR 993) when he allowed, inter alia, the appeals of the applicants, Mrs Kathleen Bartlett, Mrs Vivienne Burroughs, Mrs Doreen Carey and Mrs Anne She......
  • Preston et al. v. Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust et al., [2006] N.R. Uned. 51
    • Canada
    • 8 Marzo 2006
    ...J. McMullen Q.C. held that the employment tribunal chairman erred in holding that time began to run from the date of the TUPE transfer: [2004] I.C.R. 993. In his opinion it did not begin to run until the end of the employee's employment with the transferee. In para. 146 of his judgment......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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