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
Acting on guidance, the parties representatives and the tribunal had assumed that part of the award relating to loss of future earnings would not be taxable. The question now was whether the tribunal had power of its own motion to review its decision. Held: ‘There is a difference between saying that a case to which … Continue reading Williams v Ferrosan Ltd: EAT 5 Mar 2004
Compensation for non-economic loss brought about by the manner of an unfair dismissal is, on authority and on principle, recoverable. The award of such compensation by the employment tribunal in the present case was not excessive and was adequately explained. The court could look to parliamentary reports to identify the mischief sought to be rectified, … Continue reading Dunnachie v Kingston Upon Hull City Council: CA 11 Feb 2004
Practice and Procedure – There is no reasonable prospect of success in an appeal against refusal to exercise discretion to extend time for an appeal under Rule 21 (1) and 37 (1) when it is common ground that UAE and Aziz principles apply and no explanation was given for solicitors’ failure, a fortiori in an … Continue reading Khan v Royal Mail Group Plc: EAT 30 Sep 2004
EAT The two appeals raised questions as to (i) whether the Chairman of an employment tribunal had misdirected herself in relation to an application to amend an originating application, and (ii) as to the jurisdiction of an employment tribunal under The Employment Tribunals (Constitutions and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 to review its own previous … Continue reading Onwuka v Spherion Technology UK Ltd and others: EAT 26 Nov 2004
The claimant sought damages following his dismissal to include a sum to reflect the manner of his dismissal and the distress caused. Held: The remarks of Lord Hoffmann in Johnson -v- Unysis were obiter. The court could not, under the section, include any element for a non-financial loss, such as injury to feelings arising from … Continue reading Dunnachie v Kingston-upon-Hull City Council: HL 15 Jul 2004
The court considered the issue of the use of a strike out as a sanction for non-compliance with a court order. Held: The approach of the court in a case considering relief for sanctions – exemplified by RC Residuals v Linton Fuel was bound to be different from that in Arrow Nominees v Blackledge, as … Continue reading Stolzenberg and others v CIBC Mellon Trust Co Ltd and others: CA 30 Jun 2004
Three Defence employees sought to bring claims of variously race and sex discrimination against the Ministry. In each case their services were provided almost entirely abroad, and the defendant argued that there was no jurisdiction to hear the case, and that jurisdiction was not created by minimal presence here. Held: The provisions as to jurisdiction … Continue reading Saggar v Ministry of Defence: EAT 25 May 2004
The claimant withdrew his claim in the Employment Tribunal. By then, his employer had incurred very substantial legal costs. He appealed against the order for costs against him. Held: The tribunal had wrongly asked whether the withdrawal of the case was unreasonable. It should have asked whether the case as a whole was reasonably pursued. … Continue reading McPherson v BNP Paribas SA (London Branch): CA 14 May 2004
The applicant had been employed to provide services to RAF in the Ascension Islands. He alleged constructive dismissal. There was an issue as to whether somebody working in the Ascension Islands was protected by the 1996 Act. The restriction on jurisdiction in s196 had been removed. The question now was as to what test applied … Continue reading Serco Ltd v Lawson and Foreign and Commonwealth Office: CA 23 Jan 2004
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 Employment Tribunal claim brought out of time because of Solicitor’s negligent advice. Application of British Coal Corporation -v- Keeble [1999] IRLR 337. His Hon Judge Mcmullen QC UKEAT/0851/03, [2004] UKEAT 0851 – 03 – 0704 Bailii, EATn England and Wales Citing: Cited – British Coal Corporation v Keeble and others EAT 26-Mar-1997 The employer … Continue reading Chohan v Derby Law Centre: EAT 2 Mar 2004
The claimant alleged bias on the part of the employment appeal tribunal chairman hearing his appeal. The chairman refused to stand down, saying that he was only one of three tribunal members with an equal vote. The chairman had four year’s previously made adverse comments about the applicant in a case in which he had … Continue reading Lodwick v London Borough of Southwark: CA 18 Mar 2004
EAT Appeal from ET’s decision, at directions hearing, permitting evidence to be adduced, at the forthcoming hearing of a direct sex discrimination and victimisation complaint, of the Applicant’s allegation that, at a meeting expressed to be ‘without prejudice’, her employers sought to terminate her employment following a grievance raised by her about her treatment on … Continue reading BNP Paribas v A Mezzotero: EAT 30 Mar 2004
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
The applicants had been imprisoned and held without trial, being suspected of international terrorism. No criminal charges were intended to be brought. They were foreigners and free to return home if they wished, but feared for their lives if they did. A British subject, who was suspected in the exact same way, and there were … Continue reading A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 16 Dec 2004
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
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 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
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
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
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 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 : 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
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
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 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 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
The claimant appealed against the strike out of her case for failing to comply with an order requiring her to submit to medical examination and otherwise to pursue her disability discrimination claim. Held: The claimant’s further application for an adjournment was denied. There had been consistent and repeated failure to co-operate with the tribunals and … Continue reading Chambers-Mills v Allied Bakeries: CA 21 Feb 2011
The appellant sought to appeal a striking out of her complaint of race discrimination. She appealed from the Employment Appeal Tribunal which had rejected her appeal in its preliminary hearing procedure. Held: The Court of Appeal had the power to return a case to the full Employment Appeal Tribunal so that it could hear and … Continue reading Sukui-Lennard v Croydon Primary Healthcare Trust: CA 22 Jul 2003
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Striking-out/dismissal The Respondent brought unfair dismissal proceedings. The Appellant failed to serve a Response. A default judgement was entered and the Appellant applied to set it aside by a letter of 18 January 2010 in which it was said that ‘it would be justifiable on the grounds of reason and … Continue reading Bournemouth Borough Council v Leadbeater: EAT 11 Mar 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
The claimant doctor appealed against the refusal of compensatory damages awarded on a finding that she had been unfairly selected for redundancy. Judges: Maurice Kay VP CA, Smith, Leveson LLJ Citations: [2010] EWCA Civ 1481 Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Cited – Meek v City of Birmingham District Council CA 18-Feb-1987 Employment Tribunals … Continue reading Arhin v Enfield Primary Care Trust: CA 20 Dec 2010
The claimants were airline pilots employed by the respondent company with headquarters in Hong Kong. The court was asked whether an English Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear their complaints of unfair dismissal. Held: The pilots were employed in England so as to allow a claim for unfair dismissal here. Judges: Lord Phillips Of Worth Matravers, … Continue reading Crofts and others v Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd and others: CA 19 May 2005
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Working outside the jurisdiction Claimant employed by a Hong Kong company – Seconded from Hong Kong to work in London for associated company – Claims for unfair dismissal, discrimination on the grounds of race and/or religious belief, and unlawful deduction of wages – Tribunal holds that it has no jurisdiction by … Continue reading Pervez v Macquarie Bank Ltd (London Branch) and Another: EAT 8 Dec 2010
The applicant had failed to comply with an unless order, delivering his expert evidence some 20 minutes late. The evidence had not been allowed. They appealed. Held: The claim was re-instated. This was not the first occasion of default. Nevertheless, the rules listed several matters to be considered, and the judge must apply his mind … Continue reading R C Residuals Ltd (formerly Regent Chemicals Ltd) v Linton Fuel Oils Ltd: CA 2 May 2002
The claimant journalist sought disclosure of papers acquired by the respondent in its conduct of enquiries into the charitable Mariam appeal. The Commission referred to an absolute exemption under section 32(2) of the 2000 Act, saying that the exemption continued until the papers were destroyed, or for 20 years under the 1958 Act. Held: The … Continue reading Kennedy v The Charity Commission: SC 26 Mar 2014
The claimant, a consultant surgeon had been subject to disciplinary proceedings by his employer. They were however conducted in a manner which breached his contract. The GMC had summarily dismissed the same allegations. The claimant now appealed against an award by the county court judge which had limited his damages to loss of earnings only. … Continue reading Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust: QBD 31 Jul 2009
EAT The company decided to close two branches and make redundancies. They presented the closure itself as a fait accompli to the union representatives. The Tribunal found that this involved a failure to consult about ways of avoiding redundancies because the decision to close had been determined prior to any meeting with the union. Held: … Continue reading Securicor Omega Express Ltd v GMB (A Trade Union): EAT 7 Apr 2003
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Striking-out/dismissal The Employment Judge through the Tribunal Office wrongly informed the second, third and fourth Respondents that they could not take any action in the proceedings other to seek a review. When striking out the responses under the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 Schedule I Rule 18(7) … Continue reading Ironopolis Film Co Ltd and Others v Fox: EAT 7 May 2009
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: CostsNo evidence or submissions were addressed to the Employment Judge as to any considerations to be taken into account under Rule 41(2) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 in considering whether to and if so in what amount to make a costs order. Such points cannot … Continue reading Bright v Group Taxibus Ltd: EAT 23 Jan 2009
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Costs Costs – whether a party can recover by way of costs counsel’s fees (yes) and those of a non legally qualified adviser, as defined in s.71 CandLSA 1990 (no). Employment Tribunal Rules 38, 40-42 considered. Whether VAT recoverable by way of costs; point not taken below (Kumchyk). Whether claim misconceived … Continue reading Ramsay and others v Bowercross Construction Ltd and Another: EAT 14 Aug 2008
EAT Sex Discrimination – Inferring DiscriminationThe claimant sought compenstion for sex discrimination. She appealed a finding of a material factor justifying the difference in pay. Held: The new provisions included reference to the Code of Practice issued by the Equal Opportunities Commission, which provided that the employer should provide a transparent system for setting pay … Continue reading Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd: EAT 6 Mar 2003
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
Does an Employment Tribunal have jurisdiction to set aside a notice of withdrawal of a claim given under rule 25(2) of the 2004 Regulations? Held: Once a notice of withdrawal of a claim was served the employment tribunals had no jurisdiction to set it aside. The rules were lamentably drafted, but the decision was correct. … Continue reading Khan v Heywood and Middleton Primary Care Trust: CA 27 Jul 2006
The claimant had been dismissed shortly after becoming unable to work. She sought payment of her normal salary during the period of notice saying this was established good practice. Held: ‘We are put in the invidious position of being bound by a Court of Appeal decision which seems to the majority to conflict with a … Continue reading Langley and Another v Burso: EAT 3 Mar 2006
EAT Contract of Employment – Damages for breach of contract – The Tribunal Chairman erred in law in concluding that Mrs Verdin’s breach of contract claim should be dismissed.Rule 25 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2004 is to be construed in the light of Ako v Rothschild Asset Management [2002] IRLR 348.A claim should be … Continue reading Verdin v Harrods Ltd: EAT 21 Dec 2005
EAT Rule 25 of The Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2004 (i) Does an employment tribunal have jurisdiction to set aside a notice of withdrawal of a claim given under Rule 25(2) of The Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2004? Held, that it does not. (ii) Was the Chairman’s decision to order the claimant to … Continue reading Khan v Heywood and Middleton Primary Care Trust: EAT 20 Jan 2006
EAT Practice and Procedure: Appearance/Response, Review and Appellate Jurisdiction/Burns-Barke When a Respondent has been debarred from taking part in proceedings under ET Rule 9, he may request Reasons from the ET for the purpose of an application for review, but not for any other purpose (and, consequently, at least pending any legislative change to Rule … Continue reading NSM Music Ltd v J H Leefe: EAT 14 Dec 2005
EAT Transfer of Undertakings: Consultation and Other Information; Transfer Practice and Procedure: Appellate Jurisdiction Nature of ‘undertaking’ for the purposes of TUPE: could there be a stable economic entity arising out of work done under contract where the contract could be terminated at will or others brought in to do the work in substitution? Could … Continue reading Balfour Beatty Power Networks Ltd Interserve Industrial Services Ltd v C Wilcox and 6 others A Seymour and 18 others I M Realisation Ltd (In Administration): EAT 2 Nov 2005
The chambers appealed a finding of discrimination, saying that a pupil was not a member of the set so as to qualify under the Act. Held: The barristers set or chambers was a trade organisation, but the position of a pupil barrister was not that of a member of that chambers so as to attract … Continue reading 1 Pump Court Chambers v Horton: EAT 2 Dec 2003
EAT Practice and Procedure: Review -and- Withdrawal Claim treated as withdrawn under Employment Tribunal Rules 25(3). Misapplication of law on facts. Review application similarly dismissed. Review judgment set aside; case allowed to proceed before Employment Tribunal. Judges: His Honour Judge Peter Clark Citations: UKEAT/0483/05, [2005] UKEAT 0483 – 05 – 1310 Links: Bailii, EAT Citing: … Continue reading Tamborrino v Kuypers: EAT 13 Oct 2005
EAT Practice and Procedure – Costs. 2004 Employment Tribunal Rules – transitional provisions – interaction between old costs rule (R14. 2001 Rules) and sanction for non-payment of costs under R.13(2) 2004 Rules. Two stage process for costs order under old R.14. Judges: His Honour Judge Peter Clark Citations: [2005] UKEAT 0275 – 05 – 2406, … Continue reading Criddle v Epcot Leisure Ltd: EAT 24 Jun 2005
The employee first issued a claim in the employment tribunal, and then in the High Court. The defendant company argued that the tribunal proceedings were not concluded before the High Court proceedings were issued, but only later when they were struck out. The employee said she had withdrawn them. Held: The withdrawal of tribunal proceedings … Continue reading London Borough of Enfield v Sivanandan: CA 20 Jan 2005
The claimant was a director of the employer’s company. He claimed that the relationship of trust and confidence with the company had been undermined so far as to be a repudiatory breach of the contract. Before his complaint of unfair dismissal, he wrote without prejudice to the employers offering to stay a full time employee … Continue reading Independent Research Services Ltd v Catterall: EAT 26 Jun 1992
The claimant had been ordered to pay a deposit as a condition of being allowed to proceed with the claim which the tribunal had judged to have no reasonable prospect of success. The claim was struck out after the tribunal had been wrongly told that the deposits had not been paid. The strike out was … Continue reading Immigration Advisory Services v Oommen: EAT 19 Mar 1997
Mrs Nolan had been employed at a US airbase. When it closed, and she was made redundant, she complained that the appellant had not consulted properly on the redundancies. The US denied that it had responsibility to consult, and now appealed. Held: The appeal failed (Lord Carnworth dissenting). That the exact situation might not have … Continue reading The United States of America v Nolan: SC 21 Oct 2015
The appellant wished to pursue an appeal against the striking out of his claim, and objected that contrary to the Rules, a member of the board who had heard the pre-hearing review had also sat on the full hearing. Held: The appeal should be allowed to go ahead. Judges: Charles J Citations: [1999] UKEAT 1170 … Continue reading Lawal v Northern Spirit Ltd: EAT 15 Feb 1999
In the context of the time for appealing to the EAT under Rule 3(3) EAT Rules 1993, as amended, ‘sent’ referred to the date appearing on the ET ‘decision’.Morison P said: ‘Industrial Tribunal chairmen are required to produce reasons. When reduced to writing, it is the responsibility of the clerk to transmit those reasons to … Continue reading Mock v Inland Revenue: EAT 1 Mar 1999
EAT Judge McMullen QC adopted a limited view of the scope of the new principle of stable employment set out at the ECJ and HL. He thought it was intended ‘to rescue employees who do not have a permanent job’; and that it was confined to cases of the kind considered by the ECJ, that … Continue reading Preston and others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and others: EAT 3 Nov 2003
EAT The EAT considered the consequences, of a decision to strike out a Notice of Appearance under Rule 15(2)(d). Held: The EAT will require an employment tribunal, among other things, to consider the proportionality of what it was doing. If a fair trial were not possible on liability, there could still be an order simply … Continue reading Bolch v Chipman: EAT 19 May 2003
EAT Practice and Procedure – Case ManagementIn considering whether or not to strike out or impose some lesser remedy the guiding consideration was the overriding objective which required justice to be done between the parties and that in particular the Tribunal should consider the magnitude of the default, whether the default was the responsibility of … Continue reading Weir Valves and Controls (UK) Ltd v Armitage: EAT 15 Oct 2003
EAT Practice and Procedure – Time for appealing Judges: The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (P) Citations: PA/207/03, [2003] EAT 0207 – 03 – 2506, [2003] UKEAT 0207 – 03 – 2506, [2004] ICR 55, [2004] IRLR 185 Links: Bailii, Bailii, EATn Citing: Cited – Mock v Inland Revenue EAT 1-Mar-1999 In the context of the … Continue reading Sian v Abbey National Plc: EAT 25 Jun 2003
EAT Unfair Dismissal – CompensationIn each case, The employee sought additional damages for non-economic loss after an unfair dismissal. Held: The Act could be compared with the Discrimination Acts which explicitly awarded damages for hurt feelings. Clear authority lay against such awards in unfair dismissal cases. An Employment Tribunal considering a claim for damages for … Continue reading Dunnachie v Kingston Upon Hull City Council; Williams v Southampton Institute; Dawson v Stonham Housing Association: EAT 8 Apr 2003
The claimant had been awarded damages for sex discrimination, including a sum of andpound;25,000 for injury to feelings. The respondent appealed. Held: The Court of Appeal looked to see whether there had been an error of law in the employment tribunal decision. It did not look to see whether the Employment Appeal Tribunal had erred … Continue reading Vento v The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (No 2): CA 20 Dec 2002
The claimant appealed against an order striking out her claim. Held: The right to respect for private life is qualified by the right for both parties to have a just trial of the issues between them; and it has to be borne in mind that it was the claimant who invoked the right to such … Continue reading De Keyser Limited v Wilson: EAT 20 Mar 2001
The applicant objected that one of the lay members of the Appeal Tribunal had, on other occasions, sat with a recorder who, as counsel, was appearing for a party in that appeal. Held: There was no real possibility of bias from this scenario. The tribunal had to be independent and impartial, but mere generalised allegations … Continue reading Lawal v Northern Spirit Ltd: EAT 6 Oct 1999
The court gave detailed guidance on the application of the new procedures on civil appeals in private law cases introduced on May 2. Appeals from a County Court District Judge’s final decision in a multi-track case could now go straight to the Court of Appeal. Appeals will generally be subject to leave being obtained. An … Continue reading Tanfern Ltd v Cameron-MacDonald, Cameron-MacDonald: CA 12 May 2000
ECJ Social policy – Men and women – Equal pay – Membership of an occupational pension scheme – Part-time workers – Exclusion – National procedural rules – Principle of effectiveness – Principle of equivalence. Citations: [2001] 2 AC 415, C-78/98, [2000] IRLR 06, [2000] EUECJ C-78/98 Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: European Citing: Reference From – Preston … Continue reading Preston and Others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and Others; Fletcher and Others v Midland Bank plc: ECJ 16 May 2000
EAT Practice and Procedure – Striking out/dismissal; Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity Striking out after 50 days of hearing spread over three years. The Appellant deliberately refused to attend hearings, requesting a fresh Tribunal hear his case. Tribunal correct to strike out claim. Appellant had conducted a lengthy campaign to force the Tribunal Chairman to … Continue reading Khan v Kirklees Metropolitan Council, Hull, etc: EAT 13 Feb 2007
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. Judges: His Honour Judge Richardson Citations: UKEAT/0391/06 Links: EATn Statutes: … Continue reading City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council v Pratt: EAT 4 Oct 2006
The tribunal’s decision was found to have confused unreasonable treatment with discriminatory treatment. ‘It is common ground that an error in law is made by a tribunal if it finds less favourable treatment on racial grounds where there is no evidence or material from which it can properly make such in inference. See North West … Continue reading Effa v Alexandra Healthcare NHS Trust: CA 5 Nov 1999
The Appellant employee had applied for leave to amend his first application by substituting the name of the parent company. The Tribunal held that the rules of procedure relating to time limits went to their jurisdiction and that the amended application would be allowed but would bear the date of the amendment and would accordingly … Continue reading Cocking v Sandhurst (Stationers) Ltd: NIRC 1974
EAT Practice and Procedure – Withdrawal. Judges: The Honourable Mr Justice Rimer Citations: UKEAT/0581/05 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: See Also – Khan v Heywood and Middleton Primary Care Trust EAT 20-Jan-2006 EAT Rule 25 of The Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2004 (i) Does an employment tribunal have jurisdiction to set aside a … Continue reading Khan v Heywood and Middleton Primary Care Trust: EAT 9 Dec 2005
Rehearing/Review – Little Difference on Appeal The appellant asked the Court to reverse a decision on the facts reached in the lower court. Held: The appeal failed (Majority decision). The court’s approach should be the same whether the case was dealt with as a rehearing or as a review. Tanfern was limited to appeals from … Continue reading Assicurazioni Generali Spa v Arab Insurance Group (BSC): CA 13 Nov 2002
The appellants said they had been had been discriminated against on the grounds of their sex by the TUPE Regulations. Their discrimination cases had been dismissed as out of time. Held: The employees’ appeals were dismissed: ‘A statute cannot speak with two different voices at one and the same time. The rule that section 2(4) … Continue reading Powerhouse Retail Ltd and others v Burroughs and others; Preston and others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and others (No 3): HL 8 Mar 2006
Standing to Claim under A1P1 ECHR The appellants had written employers’ liability insurance policies. They appealed against rejection of their challenge to the 2009 Act which provided that asymptomatic pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asbestosis should constitute actionable harm for the purposes of an action of damages for personal injury. Held: The insurers’ appeals failed. … Continue reading AXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others: SC 12 Oct 2011
The claimant, a charity assisting immigrants and asylum seekers, challenged a policy document regulating the access to the court of failed applicants facing removal. They said that the new policy, reducing the opportunity to appeal to 72 hours or less, made ineffective any right for judicial review. Held: The request was granted, and the 2010 … Continue reading Medical Justice, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 26 Jul 2010
EAT Practice and Procedure – CompromiseEqual Pay Act – Work rated equivalent; Damages/Compensation This case raises three issues, two of which are of particular significance in the field of equal pay.Do employees whose jobs are rated as equivalent under a job evaluation scheme have the right to seek compensation going back up to six years … Continue reading Bainbridge and others v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council: EAT 23 Mar 2007
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 – Withdrawal PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Review In 2011 the Claimant withdrew his claim before the Employment Tribunal. As was required by the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004, within the time limit for doing so the Respondents applied for the claim to be dismissed. After a further … Continue reading The Practice Surgeries Ltd v Surrey Primary Care Trust (Now Secretary of State for Health): EAT 26 Feb 2016
EAT Practice and Procedure : Amendment – Amendment of an ET claim to add a new cause of action – ACAS Early Conciliation (Section 18A Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (as amended)) At a Preliminary Hearing, the Claimant applied to amend to add a new claim (victimisation), which post-dated the ET1. The Respondent objected solely on … Continue reading Science Warehouse Ltd v Mills: EAT 9 Oct 2015
The applicant had soft tissue injuries around the spine as a consequence of a back injury at work. He was absent from work for a long time as a result of his injuries, and he was eventually dismissed when his medical advisers could provide no clear idea of when it would be possible for him … Continue reading Clark v TDG Limited (Trading As Novacold): CA 25 Mar 1999
The applicant was a chief inspector of police. She had been prevented from carrying out appraisals of other senior staff, and complained of sex discrimination. Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. The tribunal had taken a two stage approach. It had asked first whether there had been less favourable treatment, and then asked why there had … Continue reading Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary: HL 27 Feb 2003
Ms Gillick had made an application based on sex discrimination in the first place against an agency which had contracted out her services to various divisions of BP Chemicals Ltd. The Respondents were the Company which had done that and in their Notice of Appearance they disputed that there had been an employment relationship between … Continue reading Gillick v BP Chemicals: EAT 1993
The bank challenged measures taken by HM Treasury to restrict access to the United Kingdom’s financial markets by a major Iranian commercial bank, Bank Mellat, on the account of its alleged connection with Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programmes. The bank sought to have the direction given under section 7 of the 2008 Act. … Continue reading Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2): SC 19 Jun 2013
EAT Practice and Procedure : Transfer/Hearing Together – Time for appealing Appeal from Registrar: the time limited by rule 3(3) of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993 (‘the EAT Rules’) for serving the documents necessary for the proper institution of an appeal, as provided for by rule 3(3)(1)(a)-(c) of the EAT Rules, started to run … Continue reading Carroll v The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime: EAT 9 Feb 2015
