Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council v Bainbridge
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Neutral Citation | [2007] UKEAT 0424_06_2303 |
| Date | 2006 |
| Year | 2006 |
| 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
9 cases
-
Fire Brigades Union v HM Treasury
...tribunals or courts are required to make judgements on an artificial basis. As Burton J in Cross [2005] IRLR 423, Elias J in Bainbridge [2008] ICR 249, and myself and Rimer LJ in Woodcock [2011] ICR 143; [2012] ICR 1126 have all observed, almost any decision taken by an employer will inevit......
-
R Unison (No. 2) v The Lord Chancellor Equality and Human Rights Commission (Intervener)
...some degree of artificiality about such an approach to the question of justification. As Elias J observed in the Redcar & Cleveland case, [2007] IRLR 91, at paragraph 91, 'Almost every decision taken by an employer is going to have regard to costs.' Regulation 3(1), however, says nothing of......
-
Nigel Woodcock v Cumbria Primary Care Trust
...known as the 'cost plus' approach. That approach was followed by the EAT in Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council v. Bainbridge and others [2007] IRLR 91, in a judgment delivered by the then President, Elias J, as he then was (see paragraphs 90 to 61 Mr Gilroy asserted, that the 'cost plus' pr......
-
Daler-Rowney Ltd v The Commissioner of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
...about such an approach to the question of justification. As Elias J observed in Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council v Bainbridge [2008] ICR 249 paragraph “Almost every decision taken by an employer is going to have regard to costs”. Regulation 3(1) [of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulat......
Request a trial to view additional results