facey_midasEAT2000
The EAT considered how it should deal with allegations of bias in members of the Tribunal, and particularly where there are differences as to the facts of what occurred.
Held: It is sometimes appropriate for the EAT to hear live evidence in such cases. However the opinion of the chairman as to whether he has shown bias is not itself admissible. The subjective views of any individual providing evidential material as to whether they were or were not biased is irrelevant and must be discounted. That is because such evidence is subjective, whereas the focus of the EAT has to be upon the impact which objectively would appear to the reasonably well informed observer.
Lindsay J, P
[2001] ICR 28, [2000] UKEAT 966 – 98 – 0905
Bailii
Citing:
See Also – Facey v Midas Retail Security and Another EAT 1-Jul-1999
The claimant appealed, asserting bias in the Tribunal chairman. The respondents and chairman himself had filed statements contradicting what the claimant said, and the EAT was unable to determine the issue without first hearing evidence as to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Leading Case
Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.265097
