raggett_lewisEAT2012 EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – CostsIn determining the amount of costs to be awarded having decided that the bringing of an unfair dismissal claim was misconceived and that a costs order should be made against the Claimant paying party, applying Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council v Yerrakalva [2012] IRLR 78 to the exercise of their … Continue reading Raggett v John Lewis Plc: EAT 17 Aug 2012
The claimant appealed against an order for costs made against her after rejection of her employment claim.Daleside lays down no point of principle of general application; that where a party lies about a central allegation in the case an award of costs must follow. Each case will be fact-sensitive. Judges: Laws, Richards, Rimer LJJ Citations: … Continue reading Arrowsmith v Nottingham Trent University: CA 10 Jun 2011
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-BarkeAlthough this was a ‘narrative’ judgment sufficient substance could be extracted from the decision to demonstrate compliance with rule 30(6) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 SI No. 1861; Balfour Beatty Power Networks Ltd v Wilcox [2006] EWCA Civ 1240, [2007] IRLR 63, Greenwood … Continue reading Sivagnansundarum v Whipps Cross University Hospital NHS Trust: EAT 28 Jun 2011
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Compensation The decisions to apportion compensation, not to award any future loss after April 2008 and to apply an ‘uplift’ of 25% in respect of breach of statutory procedures were neither irrational, nor without evidential foundation nor based on any misdirection and the appeal would be dismissed. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – … Continue reading Joes v The City and County of Swansea: EAT 5 May 2011
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke An Employment Tribunal decision must comply in both form and substance with 30(6) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 SI No. 1861 and failure to do so will amount to an error of law; Balfour Beatty Power Networks Ltd v Wilcox [2006] EWCA … Continue reading Greenwood v NWF Retail Ltd: EAT 18 Feb 2011
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke An Employment Tribunal decision must comply in both form and substance with 30(6) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 SI No. 1861 and failure to do so will amount to an error of law; Balfour Beatty Power Networks Ltd v Wilcox [2006] EWCA … Continue reading Norman and Another v NWF Retail Ltd: EAT 18 Feb 2011
Rule 30(6) of the 2004 Rules, which requires sufficient reasons, is intended to be a guide and not a straitjacket so that if it can be reasonably spelled out from a determination that what the rule requires has been provided by the Tribunal, then no error of law will have been committed. Judges: Buxton LJ, … Continue reading Balfour Beatty Power Networks Ltd and Another v Wilcox and others: CA 20 Jul 2006
EAT The Claimant was employed on a fixed term contract. During the terms of the contract he was dismissed for misconduct and made an application to the Employment Tribunal (ET) claiming unfair dismissal. He appealed but the appeal was heard after the date when the contract would have expired by effluxion of time. The appeal … Continue reading Prakash v Wolverhampton City Council: EAT 1 Sep 2006
EAT Practice and Procedure: Appellate Jurisdiction/Reasons/Burns-Barke – UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Constructive dismissal Reasons The simplification of the wording of the Rule relating to the content of the Reasons (i.e. the change from Rule 30(6) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 to Rule 62(5) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules … Continue reading Vairea v Reed Business Information Ltd: EAT 3 Jun 2016
EAT Practice and Procedure : Costs – ET Costs Award – ET (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 Schedule 1 Appeal from Judgment awarding costs against the Claimant upon the remitted hearing of the Respondent’s application for costs (see previous EAT Judgment in this matter, under UKEAT/0144/12). When deciding whether the threshold had been … Continue reading Oni v NHS Leicester City (Formerly Leicester City Primary Care): EAT 14 Aug 2014
EAT Practice and Procedure : Costs – Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 Schedule 1 Rule 40(2) and (3) Simply because the Employment Tribunal’s costs jurisdiction was engaged, costs did not follow the event: the Tribunal still needed to be satisfied that it would be appropriate to make an award of costs, … Continue reading Ayoola v St Christopher’s Fellowship: EAT 6 Jun 2014
The defendant company appealed against an order re-instating the claimants’ claims for damages for race discrimination and victimisation after they had been struck out for wilful disobedience of the tribunal’s orders. Held: When making a strike-out order, there were two cardinal conditions at least one of which must be met. Either the unreasonable conduct has … Continue reading Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James: CA 25 May 2006
casqueiroEAT2012 EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – CostsUnlike for ‘ordinary costs’ under Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 rule 41(1)(c), there is no power to refer wasted costs ordered under rule 48 to be assessed in the County Court. Further, the Employment Judge failed to consider, applying Ridehalgh v Horsefield [1994] Ch 205, … Continue reading Casqueiro (In A Matter of Wasted Costs) v Barclays Bank Plc: EAT 14 Jun 2012
Guidance for Wasted Costs Orders Guidance was given on the circumstances required for the making of wasted costs orders against legal advisers. A judge invited to make an order arising out of an advocate’s conduct of court proceedings must make full allowance for the fact that an advocate has to make decisions quickly and under … Continue reading Ridehalgh v Horsefield; Allen v Unigate Dairies Ltd: CA 26 Jan 1994
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts