||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 203 (Oct)
||Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Waller, Tuckey LJJ and Sir Christopher Mantell
||John Hendy QC and Damian Brown (instructed by Thompsons) for the union.
||John Hand QC and Oliver Segal (instructed by EWS legal department) for the respondent.
||15 October 2004
Trade union - Industrial action - Notice of ballot - Requirements of notice - (Consolidation) Act 1992, s 226A.
Notice to a single representative was considered sufficient notice to two separate corporate entities for the purposes of s226A of the in the particular circumstances of the case, since the companies had the one representative in industrial negotiations and the schedule attached to the notice gave particulars of employees from both companies.
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary