If a member of staff resigns and starts legal proceedings, is it proper for that former member of staff to be interviewed by an independent investigation into that office, or should that be avoided so as to not prejudice the legal case?
I would include a link to a news report, but that might breach the prohibition on politics.
Why should they be investigated? If they resign, they resign.
The reason that they resigned was being investigated.
Reports suggest that the investigator was prevented from talking to the witness who had resigned because of the pending legal action.
It is not a real question, it is HL barking up political trees at squirrels.
It is not a real question, it is HL barking up political trees at squirrels.
The politics are not relevant to the legal question.
Either the reasons given for blocking the investigation have a proper legal grounding or they don't.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/21/officials-blocked-access-to-witness-in-priti-patel-inquiry
If you want to look at the politics of it then I would ask why the bloody hell hasn't Sir Philip's employment case been heard yet?
All of the relevant questions should have been asked and answered in a proper court environment weeks ago.
Exactly.
It is not a real question, it is HL barking up political trees at squirrels.
During the current pandemic all manner of court and tribunal proceedings are being significantly delayed.
During the current pandemic all manner of court and tribunal proceedings are being significantly delayed.
Significantly?
What was typical for the tribunal waiting list before the pandemic hit and what is it now?
Exactly.
The politics are not relevant to the legal question.
Either the reasons given for blocking the investigation have a proper legal grounding or they don't.
What was typical for the tribunal waiting list before the pandemic hit and what is it now?
Long and even longer. HMCTS publishes the statistics eventually.
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/tribunals-statistics
What was typical for the tribunal waiting list before the pandemic hit and what is it now?
Long and even longer. HMCTS publishes the statistics eventually.
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/tribunals-statistics
Thanks for the link. I've not yet found the answer to the question, but I have discovered that 13% of appeals at the EAT were rejected as out of time.
I do wonder how many of these were rejected for proper reason: I've personally had three rejected as out of time, all of which were overturned.
Long and even longer.
How does that figure with their obligation under ECHR to sort these things within a reasonable time?
What is a reasonable time for an unfair dismissal claim?
Given that if a dismissal is unfair, the employee ought to be able to go back to work, the answer is clearly one of how long it is reasonable to stay off work, so 2-3 weeks?
I believe that "Reasonable" here is an absolute, not "Reasonable considering the service is underfunded, inefficient and wilfully stuffed full of claims that oughtn't be there in the first place."
I believe that "Reasonable" here is an absolute, not "Reasonable considering the service is underfunded, inefficient and wilfully stuffed full of claims that oughtn't be there in the first place."
Neither. It is an objective assessment, but there is no hard absolute, and reasonableness does not make allowance for underfunding or the rest.
The nature of the word makes it woolly. That doesn't mean that it cannot be absolute, in a woolly kind of way.
This is a semantic point though, and you appear to agree with my meaning, if not with my words.
I think @hairyloon will find that the right he is banging on about allows for flexibility and latitude in circumstances such as an international public health emergency.
Latest Post: Deceased respondent. Our newest member: vulpyx Recent Posts Unread Posts
