The facts

Mr Wedgewood was employed as an accountant by the respondent, which operated a motor car franchise. Mr Wedgewood was notified that his position was at risk of redundancy and, after some consultation, he was dismissed by reason of redundancy. The dismissal was confirmed by letter dated 4 November 2008, which stated that notice would expire on 1 December 2008.

Already a Subscriber ? If you have an active subscription, please log in to view the article. Username Password Remember me Forgot login?

With the number of workplace claims at record levels, it is increasingly important for employers to understand when the ‘effective date of termination’ (EDT) occurs. The EDT can dictate whether the employee has sufficient continuous service to bring a claim, whether a claim is presented in time and, in some cases, whether the employee was in service on a date which entitles him to a bonus or incentive award. The recent case of Geys v Société Générale should also act as a warning to employers who believe the EDT is something that is inherently in their control. This article examines the principles surrounding the EDT in the context of ambiguous dismissals and resignations, the guidance that can be taken from the Geys case and why the EDT matters.

Already a Subscriber ? Already a Subscriber ? Already a Subscriber ? If you have an active subscription, please log in to view the article. Username Password Remember me Forgot login?