Dhungana v Rai [2022]
Posted In: Case Law-
Decision Number
EAT 100 -
Legal Body
Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) -
Type of Claim / Jurisdiction
Tribunal Practice, Procedures and Jurisdictional Issues
This case related to the claimant, who alleged that she was a domestic servant and her husband who was a domestic servant for the respondent. This involved residing at the respondents’ property. The claimant brought various claims arising out of the employment including one relating to redundancy pay.
At first instance, the Tribunal found that the claimant had brought her claim out of time and refused to extend time on just and equitable grounds. The claimant appealed this decision on the basis that the Tribunal had also considered that the claimant was unlikely to establish that she was an employee on the basis of a lack of mutuality of obligation. The EAT
Already a subscriber?
Click here to login and access the full article.
Log in now to read the full articleDon't miss out, register today!
Are you fully aware of the benefits of Legal-Island's Employment Law Update Service? We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact on your business.
Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
Ensure your organisation’s policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team at Worthingtons Solicitors
Disclaimer:
The information in this article is provided as part of Legal-Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article.
Jason Elliott BL
Barrister
The main content of this article was provided by Jason Elliott BL. Email jasondelliott@outlook.com
View all articles by Jason Elliott BL