EAT Phillips J discussed the availablitity of an appeal against an industrial tribunal decision, and what would amount to perversity as an error of law, saying: ‘There is only an appeal to this court on a point of law and that is the difficulty in his way. The authorities on what is a point of law are endless, and they express the matter in all sorts of different ways, but it all in the end comes down to the same thing. An appellant who claims that there is an error of law must establish one of three things: he must establish either that the Tribunal misdirected itself in law or misunderstood the law, or misapplied the law; or, secondly, that the Tribunal misunderstood the facts, or misapplied the facts; or, thirdly – and this again was put in all sorts of different ways – that although they apparently directed themselves properly in law, and did not mis-state, or misunderstand, or misapply the facts, the decision was ‘perverse’, to use a word which to modern ears sounds harsh, or (which is another way of saying the same thing) that there was no evidence to justify the conclusion which they reached.’
Judges:
Phillips J
Citations:
[1976] 1 ITR 70
Cited by:
Not to be followed – British Telecommunications Plc v Sheridan CA 1990
The appellant employers challenged the decision of the EAT to reverse the tribunal’s finding that the claimant had been fairly dismissed.
Held: Even in cases where the Appeal Tribunal has ‘grave doubts’ about the decision of the Employment . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.509978
