There is a mandatory requirement pursuant to rule 72(1) of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013 for an employment judge to determine whether there are reasonable prospects of a judgment being varied or revoked before seeking the other party’s response and the views of the parties as to whether the matter can be determined without a … Continue reading T W White and Sons Ltd v White (Practice and Procedure): EAT 26 Mar 2021
A costs order made by the tribunal under rule 78(1)(b) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 was within its powers, even though it capped the costs in favour of the appellant (the respondent below) in an amount that had not yet been precisely ascertained. The tribunal had been entitled to have regard to … Continue reading Kuwait Oil Company (KSC) v Al-Tarkait (Practice and Procedure – Costs): EAT 4 Dec 2019
The Employment Tribunal dismissed the Claimant’s claims for discrimination, harassment, victimisation, whistleblowing detriment and unfair dismissal part of the way through the final hearing because he indicated that he was not prepared to give evidence or otherwise continue to participate in the proceedings, after the Tribunal ruled against his application to strike out the Respondent’s … Continue reading Leslie v Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust (Practice and Procedure): EAT 7 Jan 2020
The Tribunal refused to grant extensions of time: (1) by one day for a party’s notification under Rule 3(10) of the EAT Rules 1993 of dissatisfaction with a decision under Rule 3(7), where there was no clear and acceptable explanation for the delay; and (2) by 219 days for the lodging of a Notice of … Continue reading Griffiths and Another v Cetin (Practice and Procedure): EAT 1 Apr 2021
An order for disclosure under rule 31 of the 2013 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure can be made against a person who is not physically present in Great Britain at the time when the order is made. The words in rule 31: ‘[t]he Tribunal may order any person in Great Britain to disclose documents or … Continue reading Sarnoff v The Weinstein Company Llc (Practice and Procedure – Disclosure – Case Management): EAT 6 May 2020
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – appearance/striking-out The Claimant was represented by her husband, who is not legally qualified. They attended and participated in a Preliminary Hearing, at which an ET considered whether the Claimant’s claims had no, or little reasonable prospect of success, and allowed them to proceed without making a deposit order. The Claimant was … Continue reading Dimitriu v Testerworld Ltd (T/A De Pharmaceutical) (Practice and Procedure – Appearance/Striking-Out): EAT 16 Jan 2020
In this case the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) was asked whether a party was entitled to ask the Tribunal to reconsider on ‘its own initiative’ (Rules 70 and 73 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013) when it had failed to apply for reconsideration and where any application, if made, would be substantially out … Continue reading Banerjee v Royal Bank of Canada (Practice and Procedure): EAT 30 Oct 2020
The Employment Tribunal at the full hearing of claims for equal pay and sex and race discrimination was entitled to review and revoke an earlier case management order which had provided for part of the proceedings to be in private under rule 50 of the ET Rules. The earlier order was expressly subject to review … Continue reading The Home Secretary v Parr (Practice and Procedure): EAT 6 Mar 2020
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE Striking-out / dismissal PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE Imposition of deposit Rules 37(1) and 39(1) Schedule 1 Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 The Employment Tribunal (‘ET’) had struck out the Claimant’s claim of protected disclosure detriments and dismissal as having no reasonable prospect of success. In the alternative, the ET … Continue reading Arthur v Hertfordshire Partnership University NS Foundation Trust (Practice and Procedure Striking-Out : Dismissal): EAT 13 Aug 2019
Practice and procedure – The claimant was dismissed after some 31 years of employment and sought to pursue claims of unfair dismissal, discrimination and victimisation. The employment tribunal (‘ET’) initially rejected the claim under rule 12 ET Rules, because it had incorrectly named the respondent as Leicestershire City Council. The claimant applied for a reconsideration … Continue reading Leicester City Council v Patel (Practice and Procedure): EAT 14 Jul 2022
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE The appellant argued that the ET had erred in departing from a list of issues previously agreed at an earlier preliminary hearing by both parties, by exceeding its powers under rule 29 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure. The ET had failed to explain why such variation was permissible, by reference … Continue reading Ijegede v Signature Senior Lifestyle Operations Ltd (Practice and Procedure): EAT 23 Sep 2021
The Central Office of Tribunals must record the particulars of Employment Tribunal decisions. It has in the past recorded the existence of the application but no details. The court held that the register must include details of the parties, the particulars of the allegations made, and the full text of the decision where recorded. The … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of the Central Office of the Employment Tribunals (England and Wales), ex parte Public Concern at Work: QBD 9 May 2000
A tribunal had erred in ordering that names of both complainant and respondent and of witnesses should be protected in a sexual harassment case. The power only exists in respect of the complainant and a ‘person affected’. This group should not be extended. The imposition of general reporting restrictions on a sex discrimination case went … Continue reading Regina v London (North) Industrial Tribunal Ex Parte Associated Newspapers Ltd: QBD 13 May 1998
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Disposal of appeal including remission The parties agreed that the Claimant’s appeal against a Costs Order made against him in the Employment Tribunal (‘ET’) should be allowed to the extent of deducting the VAT which had wrongly been included in the sum ordered to be paid. In allowing the appeal and … Continue reading Cabezuelo v Stella Travel Serivces Uk Ltd and Another (Practice and Procedure – Disposal of Appeal Including Remission): EAT 17 Oct 2018
The EAT was asked to decide what the words ‘an email address’ in paragraph 9(2) of schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Early Conciliation: Exemptions and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2014/254 meant. The EAT decided that Parliament meant an actual email address. The Appellant had in error supplied an email address that did not exist. … Continue reading Galloway v Wood Group Uk Ltd (Procedure : Meaning of ‘An Email Address’): EAT 18 Jan 2019
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity On a Rule 26 ‘initial consideration’ on 26 August 2015 before presentation of the ET3 response, the London Central Employment Tribunal directed a Preliminary Hearing on a jurisdictional issue, to be heard on 2 October 2015. Before receipt of notice of that hearing, the Appellant applied … Continue reading Hassan v Barts Health NHS Trust and Others (Practice and Procedure): EAT 11 Jul 2017
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Time for appealing Rule 39(1) of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993 (‘the Rules’) is not relevant to the process of deciding whether an appeal has been lodged in time pursuant to Rule 37(1) of the Rules because the appeal process does not start until an appeal is properly instituted and … Continue reading J v K and Another (Practice and Procedure: Time for Appealing): EAT 10 May 2017
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Right to be heard The Appellant appealed against the Decision of the Employment Tribunal to order him to pay a contribution to the Respondent’s costs. The Employment Tribunal had struck out his claim because of his deliberate flouting of the procedure Rules and unreasonable conduct. … Continue reading Oppong v Tesco Stores Ltd (Practice and Procedure): EAT 25 May 2017
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Whistleblowing VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Protected disclosure The Appellant’s whistleblowing claim was dismissed by the Employment Tribunal in 2012. Her application dated 7 September 2012 for a review under Rule 34(3) of the 2004 Rules was permitted to proceed to a hearing in … Continue reading Clarke v Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board (Practice and Procedure): EAT 15 May 2017
EAT PRACTICE AND ROCEDURE : REVIEW/ RECONSIDERATION OF JUDGMENTS Following a judgment in his favour the claimant, through his representatives, sought reconsideration on the basis that the compensatory element of the award made to him should have been ‘ grossed up’ to take account of the incidence of tax. The reconsideration application was out of … Continue reading Tco In-Well Technologies Uk Ltd v Stuart (Practice and Procedure): EAT 19 Apr 2017
EAT Appeal from Registrar’s Order – whether the appeal was in time The appeal raised two questions: (1) Whether the Employment Tribunal’s re-issue of the Judgment under a certificate of correction meant that time began to run from the when the re-issued Judgment was sent out? If so, the appeal had been served in time. … Continue reading Majekodunmi v City Facilities Management Uk Ltd and Others (Practice and Procedure: Time for Appealing): EAT 25 Sep 2015
EAT 1. The Employment Judge had jurisdiction to consider an extant RRO notwithstanding the fact that the claims had been withdrawn on settlement. The Employment Tribunal was not functus as the Appellants sought to argue. 2. Nor did the RRO expire automatically upon withdrawal. Rule 50(1) of the 2013 Rules permits RROs that are wider … Continue reading CA, RA, RB and RC v News Group Newspapers Ltd (Practice and Procedure: Restricted Reporting Order): EAT 13 May 2016
The claimant in the employment tribunal was a litigant in person. Upon consideration of her claim form under rule 12 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, a judge determined that there were two complaints, being of (a) ordinary unfair dismissal, in respect of which the claimant lacked qualifying service, and which was dismissed; and (b) … Continue reading Clarke v The Restaurant Group (UK) Ltd (Practice and Procedure): EAT 20 Jul 2021
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE JURISDICTIONAL POINTS A Claimant brought proceedings against a parent company, and properly completed early conciliation procedures in respect of the matter between them. Once proceedings had been issued, the parent company argued that the proper Respondents were four subsidiaries of it. The Claimant successfully applied to amend to substitute those subsidiaries … Continue reading Drake International Systems Ltd and Others v Blue Arrow Ltd (Practice and Procedure): EAT 27 Jan 2016
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Amendment TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS – Transfer TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS – Consultation and other information Application to amend existing ET proceedings to add a claim against a Second Respondent (the transferee in a TUPE transfer). Without determining the date of the transfer but assuming liability for the Claimant’s employment and any … Continue reading Mist v Derby Community Health Services NHS Trust (Practice and Procedure: Amendment): EAT 22 Jan 2016
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke Whether the Employment Tribunal’s reasons for dismissing a conduct unfair dismissal claim were adequate (Meek-compliant; Employment Tribunal Rules, Rule 62(5)). Held; they were. Appeal dismissed. Peter Clark HHJ [2015] UKEAT 0172 – 15 – 0610 Bailii England and Wales Employment Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.556431
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke An Appellant who was enjoying an extended holiday on a yacht in the Pacific filled in a Notice of Appeal which though it gave his home address, supplied only an email address in response to the pro forma request to supply a postal address for service. He did … Continue reading Szepielow v NHS Tayside (Practice and Procedure : Appellate Jurisdiction/Reasons/Burns-Barke): EAT 25 Jun 2015
EAT Practice and Procedure – Striking out/dismissal The Claimant made completely unspecific allegations of discrimination in her ET1. The Employment Tribunal ordered there be a Preliminary Hearing to discover what she was really alleging. 30 minutes before the hearing she asked for a postponement, since she had had a panic attack. It was granted, but … Continue reading Hylton v Royal Mail Group Ltd (Practice and Procedure): EAT 24 Feb 2015
The claimant’s appeals against two decisions of the Employment Tribunal, made in different proceedings brought against the respondent, were heard together. In the first appeal, the claimant challenged the Employment Tribunal’s refusal to reconsider its earlier judgment dismissing the respondent’s application to strike out three claims brought by the claimant. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held … Continue reading Ameyaw v Pricewaterhousecoopers Services Ltd (Practice and Procedure; Victimisation; Unfair Dismissal): EAT 3 Nov 2021
Response Properly Struck Out – Non-compliance On the first day of a five-day hearing to consider the Claimant’s claims of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and holiday pay, the Tribunal struck out the Respondents’ Response for failing to comply with the Tribunal’s orders. Those failures meant that it was impossible for the trial to proceed within … Continue reading Emuemukoro v Croma Vigilant (Scotland) Ltd and Another (Practice and Procedure): EAT 22 Jun 2021
Iniquity surpasses legal advice privilege PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Disclosure PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Striking-out/dismissal An Employment Judge struck out paragraphs of the Claimant’s claim as they depended on an email in respect of which legal advice privilege was claimed. In considering whether privilege could not be claimed as the advice in the email was … Continue reading X v Y Ltd (Practice and Procedure – Disclosure): EAT 9 Aug 2018
EAT Practice and Procedure: Appellate Jurisdiction/Reasons/Burns-Barke 1. Section 21 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 gives jurisdiction to the Employment Appeal Tribunal to entertain appeals from a ‘decision’ of the Employment Tribunal. 2. A useful working definition of the term ‘decision’ which is not defined in the Act, is that to be found in Rule … Continue reading Wolfe v North Middlesex University Hospital Nhs Trust (Practice and Procedure: Appellate Jurisdiction/Reasons/Burns-Barke): EAT 9 Apr 2015
Practice and Procedure: Preliminary Issues. The claimant appealed against the dismissal of her claim on the basis that she had not first taken the matter to conciliation through ACAS. He claim was of sexual harrassment and she had an interdict to prevent the employer contacting her. The rule excluding such claims appeared strict, but the … Continue reading Cranwell v Cullen (Practice and Procedure: Preliminary Issues): EAT 20 Mar 2015
EAT Practice and Procedure : Costs – Tribunal orders that Appellant should pay Respondents one-third of their costs (estimated prior to assessment at andpound;260,000) on the basis that the claim was misconceived from the start.Held, dismissing the appeal, that there was no error of law in the Tribunal’s approach – In particular, it was not … Continue reading Vaughan v London Borough of Lewisham and Others (Practice and Procedure : Costs): EAT 6 Jun 2013
Reserved judgments and reasons; procedure on reconsideration applications
Following a full merits hearing the Employment Tribunal reserved its decision. In due course it promulgated its reserved judgment dismissing all of the claimant’s . .
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Case management
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Preliminary issues
On 12 March 2015, at a telephone Case Management Preliminary Hearing, . .
EAT Unfair Dismissal – A Tribunal does not necessarily err in law if it proceeds with a hearing and makes findings of fact adverse to a respondent where a claimant does not attend and is not available for cross examination. Rules 14 and 27 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure considered. Judges: Richardson J … Continue reading Duffy v George: EAT 19 Oct 2012
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – ReviewJURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Extension of time: reasonably practicableThe Claimant’s solicitor faxed an ET1 claiming unfair dismissal to the Tribunal more than 3 months after the effective date of termination. He said that he had sent an ET1 by post earlier, but the Tribunal had not received it. He did not … Continue reading Clark v H2O Water Services Ltd: EAT 20 Aug 2012
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Contribution PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Disclosure (1) An employment tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine claims for contribution under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 between persons jointly or concurrently liable for damage caused by an act of unlawful discrimination. Nor in any event does the 1978 Act create such … Continue reading Sunderland City Council v Brennan and Others: EAT 2 May 2012
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Right to be heard After the conclusion of an oral hearing in a claim for unfair dismissal the Employment Tribunal directed that the parties lodge written submissions. The Claimant prepared submissions and served them on the Respondent but for some reason or mishap, they were not sent to the Employment … Continue reading Quashie v Methodist Homes Housing Association: EAT 16 Jan 2012
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Parties The Claimant brought proceedings against the First Respondents under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, partly arising out of alleged harassment by the Appellant, a former colleague. She advanced no claim against the Appellant and made it clear that she had no wish to do so; but the First Respondents … Continue reading Beresford v Sovereign House Estates and Another: EAT 29 Nov 2011
EAT Practice and Procedure : Service : PartiesRespondents to a discrimination claim sought joinder, in reliance on rule 10 (2) (h) and/or 10 (2) (r) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure, of the Appellant, an ex-employee based in the U.S., who they said was jointly liable for any discrimination found against them – Application … Continue reading Finlay v Cyron and Others: EAT 14 Oct 2011
Practice and Procedure — Application/ClaimThe Employment Tribunal (‘the ET’) rejected the Appellant’s ET1 under rule 10(1)(c) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure. The brief reasons for the decision were not consistent with a rejection under rule 10(1)(c). In response to written questions from the Employment Appeal Tribunal (‘the EAT’) the Employment Judge (‘the EJ’) … Continue reading Ryan v Priory Healthcare Ltd and Another: EAT 7 Jun 2019
Sex Discrimination — Burden of ProofThe liability judgment The ET did not err in law in dismissing the Claimant’s complaints of unlawful discrimination, victimisation and harassment. In one respect – relating to the ET’s reasoning concerning the burden of proof – the EAT’s decision is by a majority, Mr Hunter dissenting – see paragraphs 61-76. … Continue reading Solomon v University of Hertfordshire and Another: EAT 29 Oct 2019
The Tribunal had considered the question of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. It heard evidence, and considered that there was no jurisdiction. This was despite the fact that, at an earlier stage, the employer had said that it would not contest the jurisdictional issue on the basis that the claim was out of time, and … Continue reading Radakovits v Abbey National Plc: CA 17 Nov 2009
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs The Employment Appeal Tribunal (‘the EAT’) dismissed an appeal against a detailed assessment of costs by the Employment Tribunal (‘the ET’). The EAT held that, in the light of the express dispute on that assessment, the ET had not erred in law in its approach and had given adequate reasons … Continue reading Monfared v Spire Health Care Ltd: EAT 16 Nov 2018
DISABILITY DISCRIMNATION – Exclusions/jurisdictions The Tribunal had not erred in concluding that a manifestation of the Claimant’s post-traumatic stress disorder and dissociative amnesia was a tendency to steal which was an excluded condition pursuant to Regulation 4(1)(b) Equality Act 2010 (Disability) Regulations 2010 (SI 2010/2128). The ET was entitled, on the evidence, to reject the … Continue reading Wood v Durham County Council: EAT 3 Sep 2018
The question is whether, a full Employment Tribunal having been empanelled to hear and determine the appellant, Mrs Unwin’s complaint of victimisation contrary to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Chairman of that Employment Tribunal, Mr Rich, was entitled to strike out the complaint under Rule 13(2)(e) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure and … Continue reading Unwin v Sackville School and Another: EAT 1 Feb 2000
EAT The employee made a claim for sexual harassment against her employer and an individual who effectively ran the company. No response was entered and the Chairman entered a default judgment on liability only. Some months later a remedies hearing was fixed and the individual (the Second Appellant) turned up and wished to make representations. … Continue reading D and H Travel Ltd, Henderson v Foster: EAT 24 Jul 2006
EAT Unfair Dismissal: Reason for Dismissal including Substantial Other Reason: Practice and Procedure: Appellate Jurisdiction / Reasons / Burns-Barke ET did not state what acts or omissions constituted the misconduct in which they held the employer to have had a genuine belief based on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation. In the absence of this, … Continue reading Krelle v C Ransom Tradeteam Ltd: EAT 27 Jan 2006
The council sought to make redundancies because of its financial circumstances following re-organisation. The employees said the consultation procedure had been a sham. Held: Fair consultation involves giving the body consulted a fair and proper opportunity to understand fully the matters about which it is being consulted, and to express its views on those subjects, … Continue reading Middlesbrough Borough Council v TGWU Unison: EAT 4 May 2001
JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – 2002 Act and pre-action requirements The employment judge had erred in rejecting a second claim brought by the Claimant against the same two Respondents as an earlier claim (the first claim) brought by him. The first and second claims were claims ‘relating to’ the same ‘matter’ for the purposes of the early … Continue reading Akhigbe v St Edwards Home Ltd and Others: EAT 8 Mar 2019
The claimant asserted the appearance of prejudice in the tribunal which had heard his claim. Held: The claim was unfounded. Courts should acknowledge that there was always a risk of causing suspicion if untoward remarks were made, and a court should be careful. Nevertheless, the appeal was dismissed. EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal. Judges: … Continue reading Deman v Victoria University of Manchester: EAT 28 Sep 1998
The claimant appealed against orders striking out his complaint of unlawful racial discrimination. He had owned a nursing home regulated by the respondent authority. A senior white employee had broken regulations regarding safekeeping of drugs, but he as owner had been prosecuted and struck off. She had not. The home registration was then cancelled. He … Continue reading Balamoody v Manchester Health Authority: EAT 2 Mar 1999
EAT Practice and Procedure : Rule 44 – Whether the Employment Tribunal applied the correct test to determine whether or not parts of the Claimant’s witness statement were ‘admitted in evidence’ for the purposes of Rule 44 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure, so that they were open for inspection to the public – no – … Continue reading Compass Group Plc and Another v Guardian News and Media Ltd and Another: EAT 18 Dec 2014
EAT Practice and Procedure: Appellate Jurisdiction/Reasons/Burns-Barke – The Employment Judge found that the Claimant had been unfairly dismissed. However, in breach of rule 62(5) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure he failed to identify the relevant principles of law. Since it was not clear how he had reached the view that the dismissal was … Continue reading BGC Technology Support Services Ltd v Moore: EAT 5 Nov 2014
EAT Practice and Procedure : Striking-Out/Dismissal – Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity The Employment Judge made a determination of time limit issues and struck out Further and Better Particulars at a Case Management Discussion. He should not have done so: see rule 17(2) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2004 then applicable. He should … Continue reading Bham v 2Gether NHS Foundation Trust Gloucestershire: EAT 12 Sep 2014
EAT Practice and Procedure : Costs – It was argued by the Appellant that, by virtue of the definition of ‘costs’ in rule 38(3) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2004, a receiving party who employed a qualified in-house legal representative was unable to recover costs in respect of the time spent by that … Continue reading Ladak v DRC Locums Ltd: EAT 16 Jun 2014
EAT Practice and Procedure : Case Management – Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity Review The Claimant brought proceedings which were vigorously contested. She sought to establish that she had suffered an unfair (constructive) dismissal. The hearing was fixed over two days. On the first day the Claimant unsuccessfully sought an adjournment. The Employment Tribunal read … Continue reading Papajak v Intellego Group Ltd and Others: EAT 3 Jun 2014
EAT Practice and Procedure : Bias, Misconduct and Procedural Irregularity – Costs – The Employment Tribunal did not comply with rule 38(9) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure (Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004) in that it did not afford the Claimant an opportunity – which means … Continue reading Gwara v Mid Essex Primary Care Trust: EAT 17 Jul 2013
bradford_prattEAT2007 EAT Practice and Procedure Statutory dispute resolution procedures introduced by the Employment Act 2002 – modified grievance procedure – whether employee complied with requirement to set out in writing the basis for the grievance. Held, allowing the appeal, that the employee had not done so.Richardson J said: ‘an employee must set out in his … Continue reading City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council v Pratt: EAT 9 Jan 2007
EAT Practice and Procedure: Disclosure – Disclosure – Rule 31 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 – ET Case Management Various Orders for specific disclosure had been made by the ET as part of its case management of the Appellant’s claims of unfair dismissal (section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996 (‘ERA’)) and automatic … Continue reading Gray v Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith Ltd: EAT 16 Mar 2016
EAT Practice and Procedure: Right To Be Heard – The Appellant’s claim form was rejected for non-compliance with the early conciliation provisions. He applied for a reconsideration under Rule 13 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure, but the application was rejected by the Employment Judge without him being given a hearing as required by … Continue reading Ahmed v Arearose Ltd: EAT 5 Feb 2016
Third Party Anonymity Order rights before ET The Appellant appealed the refusal of her application under Rule 50 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 for an order that her name be redacted or anonymised in an earlier judgment in unfair and wrongful dismissal proceedings brought by two of her relatives. She had also … Continue reading TYU v ILA SPA Ltd: EAT 16 Sep 2021
f_gEAT2011 EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Restricted reporting/permanent anonymity orderClaims of sex discrimination and unfair dismissal by a care assistant at a further education college with residential facilities for severely disabled students – Judge makes both a restricted reporting order under rule 50 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure and a ‘permanent anonymity order’ … Continue reading F v G: EAT 21 Sep 2011
Practice and procedure – rule 50(1) schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 The respondents made an application under rule 50(1) schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 (‘the ET Rules’) to prohibit the disclosure of information relating to specified matters on the … Continue reading Millicom Service UK Ltd and Others v Clifford: EAT 11 May 2022
Counsel appearing at the tribunal had previously sat as a judge with a tribunal member. The opposing party asserted bias in the tribunal. Held: The test in Gough should be restated in part so that the court must first ascertain all the circumstances which have a bearing on the suggestion that the judge was biased. … Continue reading Lawal v Northern Spirit Limited: HL 19 Jun 2003
An Employment Tribunal erred by permitting the Claimant to amend her claim to add new allegations of whistleblowing detriment and by listing a final hearing without notice to the Respondent, in a case where the Respondent had made no response to the claim. The amendment decision was made without sufficient consideration of the guidance in … Continue reading Iqra Community Primary School v Mansur (Whistleblowing : Protected Disclosure): EAT 5 Nov 2020
A group of employees had brought proceedings which appeared (though there was some ambiguity) to be intended as claims for redundancy payments. More than three months after the effective date of termination they sought to amend to plead alternative claims for unfair dismissal. Held: In hearing appeals from the EAT the first question the court … Continue reading British Newspaper Printing Corporation v Kelly: CA 1989
Dr M had successfully challenged her dismissal and recovered damages for unfair dismissal and race discrimination. In the interim, Her employer HA had reported the dismissal to the respondent who continued their proceedings despite the decision in her favour. The GMC now said that the availability of judicial review excluded her right to commence proceedings … Continue reading Michalak v General Medical Council and Others: SC 1 Nov 2017
The claimant had claimed race discrimination. The tribunal declined to order the issue of witness summonses. The EAT overturned that decision on the basis that the tribunal had not recognised that it had a discretion to issue the summonses, and had therefore failed to exercise it, and remitted the case for rehearing. The employer appealed. … Continue reading Noorani v Merseyside TEC Limited: CA 19 Oct 1998
The applicant sought leave to appeal against a decision disallowing his complaint at his claim for race discrimination being struck out as scandalous, frivolous or vexatious. He said that the Tribunal had dismissed his claim without giving him opportunity to present the facts on which it was based. Held: Given the decision on Roffey, the … Continue reading Balamoody v United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing: CA 14 May 2001
The employers had sought to appeal from a decision of the employment tribunal. The EAT had refused it as out of time. Held: The rules required the appellant to file within 42 days of receiving the decision, the notice of appeal together with a copy of the tribunal’s written reasons. ‘Sent’ meant the date on … Continue reading Gdynia American Shipping Lines (London) Ltd v Chelminski: CA 8 Jul 2004
The Appellant has presented a claim in the Employment Tribunal in which she alleges that she was dismissed by the Respondent and that the dismissal amounted to sex discrimination and/or victimisation on the ground that she had done a protected act, contrary to the Equality Act 2010. She appeals against the Employment Tribunal’s refusal to … Continue reading Steer v Stormsure Ltd (Sex Discrimination, Human Rights): EAT 21 Dec 2020
The court considered an appeal against a refusal of a late application for an adjournment by an employment tribunal. Held: The appeal was allowed. There had been no error of law in the decisions of the ET to refuse adjournments either in its approach in principle to the exercise of the ET’s discretion or in … Continue reading Transport for London v O’Cathail: CA 29 Jan 2013
EAT Lis Pendens. Equal pay claims. Claimants presented claims which were met with a response that included the contention that they had not complied with the statutory grievance procedures. While determination of that issue pending, claimants presented further claims (after having issued fresh grievance letters) in which, essentially, the same equal pay claims were made. … Continue reading Lynch and Others v East Dunbartonshire Council: EAT 9 Mar 2010
EAT Practice and Procedure: Striking-out/dismissal – Imposition of Deposit The Employment Tribunal made a deposit order under rule 20 of the Tribunal Rules of Procedure against the Appellant on the grounds that her claims had little prospect of success. She failed to pay the deposit by the date specified and her claims were struck out. … Continue reading Van Rensburg v The Royal Borough of Kingston-Upon-Thames and others: EAT 16 Oct 2007
EAT Practice and Procedure : Imposition of Deposit – Employment Tribunal ordered that Claimant pay a deposit of andpound;250 as a condition of being permitted to continue to take part in proceedings relating to his claim that he was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against on grounds of age.Appeal dismissed.(1) Rule 18(2) of Schedule 1 to … Continue reading Spring v First Capital East Ltd: EAT 20 Jul 2012
The applicants sought to strike out a claim under section 459. The two companies sold toiletries, the one as retail agent for the other. They disputed the relationship of the companies, and the use of a trading name. Documents were disclosed which appeared to be fabrications. Held: Where a party was in breach of court … Continue reading Arrow Nominees Inc, Blackledge v Blackledge: ChD 2 Nov 1999
Parties to litigation had made without prejudice disclosures. One party sought to give evidence contradicting the dsclosure, and the other now applied for leave to amend based upon the without prejudice statements to be admitted to demonstrate the perjury. Held: The court had to balance the competing needs of fairness and expedition. There was nothing … Continue reading Savings and Investment Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) v Fincken: CA 14 Nov 2003
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSALConstructive dismissalCompensationRespondent’s ET3 struck out for failure to comply with an unless order. No judgment entered against the Respondent. Employment Tribunal refused to permit Respondent to have order reviewed but applied rule 34 of ET Rules of Procedure. Also, applying rule 9 Employment Tribunal refused to permit Respondent to participate in remedy hearing; … Continue reading Epem Ltd v Huggins: EAT 21 May 2012
The claimant had been dismissed for gross misconduct. As a teacher he had drunk alcohol at school, and taken a bottle of wine. His complaint of unfair dismissal had been dismissed, and he appealed that decision, saying the school had departed from proper procedures, that the panels had been chosen in contravention of procedures, and … Continue reading Atkin v The Grove Primary School and Another: EAT 15 Nov 2001
When to reverse a previous decision by means of a Review undertaken pursuant to paragraph 13(1)(e) of Schedule 1 to the 2001 Regulations. Judges: Wall J Citations: [2002] UKEAT 1201 – 01 – 2012 Links: Bailii Statutes: Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2001 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Employment Updated: 31 October 2022; … Continue reading Husband v Durham Police Authority: EAT 20 Dec 2002
The High Court can transfer proceedings wrongly started in High Court to the County Court as an alternative to its jurisdiction to strike out the claim. Stuart-Smith LJ said: ‘. . provided proceedings are started within the time permitted by the statute of limitations, are not frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of the process of … Continue reading Restick v Crickmore: CA 3 Dec 1993
The claimant challenged a decision of the chairman of the Employment tribunal not to recuse himself on a later hearing after the claimant had previously made allegations of bias and improper conduct against him. Judges: Waller LJ, Laws LJ, Leveson LJ Citations: [2006] EWCA Civ 1462, [2007] IRLR 211, [2006] ICR 1565 Links: Bailii Statutes: … Continue reading Ansar v Lloyds TSB Bank Plc and others: CA 9 Oct 2006
The copyright tribunal was given a wide discretion for the awarding of costs on applications made to it for licenses. The nature of the applications and the different basis makes it dangerous to import rules for awards from the general rules on costs. The Copyright Tribunal was wrong to award costs on an award to … Continue reading AEI Rediffusion Music Ltd v Phonographic Performance Ltd: CA 1 Feb 1999
EAT Deposit ordered. Order lost in post due to the Claimant putting wrong post-code on ET1. Review. Distinguishing Judgments from Orders. Strike-out. Extending time. Judges: His Honour Peter Clark Citations: [2005] UKEAT 0318 – 05 – 2907, UKEAT/0319/05/TM, UKEAT/0318/05/TM, [2005] ICR 1647, UKEAT/0320/05/TM, [2005] IRLR 836 Links: Bailii, EATn Statutes: Employment Tribunal Rules 2004 20(1) … Continue reading Sodexho Ltd v Gibbons: EAT 14 Jul 2005
Disclosure was sought of a report prepared by the BBC to assess the balance of its coverage of middle east affairs. The BBC said that the information was not held for purposes other than those of journalism, art or literature. One issue was whether the test was as to whether there was a ‘predominant’ use … Continue reading British Broadcasting Corporation v Sugar and Another: Admn 2 Oct 2009
ECJ (Staff Regulations) Public – Procedure – Application for review – Section 119 of the Rules of Procedure – Decision of the Tribunal – Application for review on an order striking following a withdrawal – authority of res judicata – None – Inadmissible automatically raised Citations: 8/05, [2011] EUECJ 8/05 Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: European Employment … Continue reading Fouwels And Others v Commission: ECJ 20 Sep 2011
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Imposition of depositDeposit Order: Employment Tribunal Rules, rule 20. Amount. Claimant’s ability to pay; whether student loan could be taken into account. Whether sufficient reasons. Whether deposit order for andpound;380 perverse. Judges: Smith J Citations: [2012] UKEAT 0030 – 11 – 1001 Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and Wales Employment Updated: … Continue reading Simpson v Strathclyde Police and Another: EAT 10 Jan 2012
Practice and Procedure/Part Time Workers The Claimant was a retired chairman in the Residential Property Tribunal Service. On 20/10/11 she brought a claim against the MOJ as part of the O’Brien/Miller litigation claiming that in receiving no pension she was being subjected to discrimination as a part-time worker. Her claim was stayed pending the outcome … Continue reading Ministry of Justice v McGrandle: EAT 26 Jul 2022
The claimant had issued claims in discrimination. She withdrew the claim, but still had a costs order made against her. She appealed and succeeded, and the Council now sought re-instatement of the costs order. Held: The Court made clear the rules for intervening in a costs decision and did in fact intervene, reaching different conclusions … Continue reading Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council v Yerrakalva: CA 3 Nov 2011
EAT Practice and Procedure : Right To Be Heard – Where an Employment Tribunal has applied rule 9 of its rules of procedure, the Respondent not having lodged a response in time, is not permitted to participate in any hearing either as to merits or remedy. NSM Music v Leefe [2006] ICR 450 followed. Judges: … Continue reading VMI (Blackburn) Ltd v Camm: EAT 2 Jun 2011
ECJ (Staff Regulations) Public – Procedure – Application for review – Section 119 of the Rules of Procedure – Decision of the Tribunal – Application for review on an order striking following a withdrawal – authority of res judicata – None – Inadmissible automatically raised Citations: 45/06, [2011] EUECJ 45/06 Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: European Employment … Continue reading De Buggenoms And Others v Commission: ECJ 20 Sep 2011
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reason for dismissal including substantial other reasonThe Employment Tribunal failed to give adequate reasons for decisions that(a) There was a redundancy situation that led to the dismissal of the Claimant.(b) There had been, or was expected to be any diminution or cessation in the kind of work undertaken by the Claimant.(c) … Continue reading Macquet v Naiade Resorts (UK) Ltd: EAT 16 Jun 2011
UTIAC LAW(A) There is nothing in MS (Palestinian Territories) [2010] UKSC 25 that overrules the judgments in MA (Ethiopia) [2009] EWCA Civ 289. Where a claim to recognition as a refugee depends on whether a person is being arbitrarily denied the right of return to a country as one of its nationals, that issue must … Continue reading ST (Ethnic Eritrean – Nationality – Return) Ethiopia CG: UTIAC 1 Jul 2011
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 PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Preliminary issuesJURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Claim in time and effective date of terminationEmployment Tribunal declared that it had jurisdiction to consider a claim for unfair dismissal, rejecting arguments that time grounds excluded it. On review, it upheld this decision. A decision was made under rule 28 ET Procedure Rules. A subsequent … Continue reading Kudjodji v Lidl Ltd: EAT 25 May 2011
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-BarkeCONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Whether establishedThe Tribunal’s reasons for concluding that the dismissal of the Claimant was not unfair did not adequately address the issues which were raised before it; they did not comply with rule 30(1)(e) of the Employment Tribunal Rules or the test laid down in Meek.There … Continue reading Williams v Guardian Care Homes Ltd and Others: EAT 9 May 2011