EAT Practice and Procedure – Case management
Employment Tribunal had refused to grant witness order on the application of Claimants in an unfair dismissal claim because (1) dismissal was admitted and so the onus was, they said, on the Respondents to show both the reason for the dismissal and that it was fair; and (2) the Claimants could ask for sight of the Respondents’ witness list. The witness in question was the manager of a shop to which the Respondents had provided the Claimants as cleaners; the Respondents were asserting that they had had to dismiss the Claimants as the shop manager had required that they be removed from working at those premises. On appeal, the appeal was upheld and an order was substituted ordering that the witness attend the forthcoming hearing and give evidence if called on so to do. The Tribunal’s refusal was perverse: the onus was not on the Respondents to show fairness, the Tribunal had, in any event, taken account of an irrelevant matter in considering onus, and the Tribunal had failed to take account of the fact that seeing the Respondents’ witness list would not, of itself, secure the witness for the Claimants. The witness was plainly one who had potentially relevant evidence to give and the Claimants were entitled to seek to have her evidence available to them.
Judges:
The Honourable Lady Smith
Citations:
UKEATS/0015/07
Links:
Citing:
See Also – Bedfordshire Police v Liversidge EAT 10-Jul-2000
. .
Cited by:
See Also – Atlas Cleaning Ltd v Liversidge and others EAT 2-Apr-2008
EAT The claimants were employed by the respondents as cleaners. They worked at a ‘Zara’ store and were dismissed when that client required that they no longer work in their premises. They had been offered . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.258151