EAT The Appellant was found by the Tribunal to have been victimised and discriminated against in three respects; in two cases at the hands of Mr Williams who commenced disciplinary proceedings against him and in one case by the giving of a warning as the outcome of those proceedings by a panel chaired by Dr Aylett.
The EAT allowed the Respondent’s appeal against two of those findings and remitted the two complaints to the same Tribunal. At the remitted hearing the Tribunal found one of those complaints proved but found against the Appellant on the sanctions issue. The Appellant appealed against the latter finding. Br />Held (1) the fact that one of the lay members of the EAT had dissented from the majority on the sanctions issue at the first EAT hearing did not lead to the conclusion that he should recuse himself at the second EAT hearing: the question before the EAT at the second hearing was different from that at the first. In order for a judge to be required to recuse himself there must be a factor of substance beyond his having decided the issue between the same parties before. Amex v Whitefrairs [2004] EWCA Civ 1418, and Dobbs v Triodos Bank [2005] EWCA Civ 468, followed.
(2) On the substantive appeal, there was no inconsistency between the Tribunal’s first decision and their decision on the remitted hearing at which they were applying the law and answering specific questions as set out in the judgment of the EAT at the first appeal; at the remitted hearing the Tribunal applied the law as that set out, and found facts are required; their factual findings were not perverse; no error of law was made out.
Judges:
Burke QC HHJ
Citations:
[2006] UKEAT 0252 – 06 – 1909
Links:
Citing:
Cited – Dobbs v Triodos Bank Nv (No 1) CA 15-Apr-2005
The defendant a litigant in person sought to stay his appeal. He asked the court to stay his appeal so that he could get legal aid, and to encourage the LSC to grant legal aid.
Held: The court refused. The defendant asserted that courts would . .
Cited – AMEC Capital Projects Ltd v Whitefriars City Estates Ltd CA 28-Oct-2004
Alleged bias and procedural unfairness by an adjudicator appointed to determine a dispute in relation to a construction contract.
Held: The principles of the common law rules of natural justice and procedural fairness were two-fold. A . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.245047