• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Adding house wife as a ltd company director

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #61
    Originally posted by JohntheBike View Post
    be careful, as I can prove what I say.
    I'm not fat, I'm just fluffy.

    Comment


      #62
      Originally posted by JohntheBike View Post
      EAT December 2002 heard by Mr. Justice Elias
      Bowne International Ltd v Slater & Ors, Court of Appeal - United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal, December 20, 2002, [2002] UKEAT 1165_02_2012 ?
      'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

      Comment


        #63
        Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
        Bowne International Ltd v Slater & Ors, Court of Appeal - United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal, December 20, 2002, [2002] UKEAT 1165_02_2012 ?
        no, guess again

        but as the heading suggests, the EAT is part of the Court of Appeal. So, I represented myself in the EAT, aka, the Court of Appeal?, in December 2002.

        edit
        under the heading of "Appearances" in the judgement


        For the Appellant - the Appellant in person.
        Last edited by JohntheBike; 15 May 2019, 15:40.

        Comment


          #64
          Originally posted by JohntheBike View Post
          no, guess again

          but as the heading suggests, the EAT is part of the Court of Appeal. So, I represented myself in the EAT, aka, the Court of Appeal?, in December 2002.
          No, the EAT is NOT part of the Court of Appeal.

          They are not the same thing.

          You are deluding yourself if you think that they are.

          Nobody, ever, has said that the Employment Appeal Tribunal is also known as the Court of Appeal and been factually correct.
          I'm not fat, I'm just fluffy.

          Comment


            #65
            Originally posted by DeludedKitten View Post
            No, the EAT is NOT part of the Court of Appeal.

            They are not the same thing.

            You are deluding yourself if you think that they are.

            Nobody, ever, has said that the Employment Appeal Tribunal is also known as the Court of Appeal and been factually correct.
            well, the title of the case listed seems to imply that the EAT is a part of the Court of Appeal. The diagram I linked to also suggests this. So we need a legal bod to clarify this for us. i.e what is the relationship between the EAT and the Court of Appeal, and also what is the relationship between the Upper Tribunal and the Court of Appeal. Both are higher than their respective lower courts. So in the diagram listed, it shows "Tribunals" subservient to the Court of Appeal. So does that mean, the 1st Tier Tribunal, the Upper Tribunal, the ET and the EAT are subservient to the COA within their respective hierarchies?

            i.e !st Tier Tribunal > Upper Tribunal > Court of Appeal
            and Employment Tribunal > Employment Appeal Tribunal > Court of Appeal

            but whatever, I represented myself at the Employment Appeal Tribunal, which was heard by a High Court Judge, Mr. Justice Elias. A preliminary hearing had also been heard by a High Court Judge, Mr. Justice Lindsay.

            Comment


              #66
              Originally posted by JohntheBike View Post
              no, guess again

              but as the heading suggests, the EAT is part of the Court of Appeal. So, I represented myself in the EAT, aka, the Court of Appeal?, in December 2002.

              edit
              under the heading of "Appearances" in the judgement


              For the Appellant - the Appellant in person.
              No it doesn't. It indicates the Court of Appeal is hearing something that came through the EAT. The appeals they hear could have come from a number routes. It sits above EAT as the next step but is no way part of it. It has a Civil and Criminal divisions which proclude it from being part of anything for a start and so on.

              Read the wiki
              Employment Appeal Tribunal - Wikipedia

              A party dissatisfied with a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal may apply to the tribunal requesting a review of its own decision. The tribunal may also review its decision of its own motion. Decisions can be reviewed where an error is relatively minor, for example a clerical error. Where a party believes the tribunal has misapplied the law or acted perversely, the review process is inappropriate and the party may appeal to the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) or the Court of Session (Scotland).
              Last edited by northernladuk; 15 May 2019, 21:47.
              'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

              Comment


                #67
                Here it is in pretty pictures.

                https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/...art-160419.pdf
                'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

                Comment


                  #68
                  Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
                  OK, this is what I was looking for

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X