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 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 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
The claimant appealed against refusal of a Restricted Reporting Order, refused by the ET saying that it had had no jurisdiction to make one. Judges: Burton P J Citations: [2003] UKEAT 960 – 01 – 2901, [2003] ICR 1031, [2003] IRLR 415 Links: Bailii Statutes: Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2001 Employment … Continue reading X v Commissioner Metropolitan Police Service: EAT 29 Jan 2003
The applicant claimed that the respondent Council had discriminated against her. After complicated applications, leave to appeal was granted on limited grounds, but on appeal the applicant had been allowed to extend that appeal. Held: An appeal tribunal might use its case management powers to allow limited departure from the permitted grounds of appeal, only … Continue reading General Council of the Bar v Miriki: CA 21 Dec 2001
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
The claimant had been struck from the register of nurses after convictions arising from failures of his staff at his nursing home with regard to drug management. He had then brought claims of unlawful race discrimination against the health authority and against the respondent. Those claims had been dismissed as frivolous, no valid comparator having … Continue reading Balamoody v United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting: CA 6 Dec 2001
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
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
An industrial tribunal hearing conducted behind the locked doors of the chairman’s office was not held in public, even if, in fact, no member of the public was prevented from attending. The obligation to sit in public was fundamental, and the tribunal had no jurisdiction to conduct itself in this way. The industrial tribunal system … Continue reading Storer v British Gas plc: CA 25 Feb 2000
The claimant alleged unfair dismissal. The respondent failed to enter a response within the period required, and was refused an extension of time. It appealed that refusal, saying the tribunal had failed to allow for the factors enumerated in the Kwik Save case. The respondent claimed those guidelines had been superceded by the newer rules. … Continue reading The Polygon Corporation v Tregunna: EAT 14 Nov 2001
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs – Case management – Claim for disability discrimination and breach of contract. Preliminary hearing at which claimants’ solicitors found liable in expenses and pre hearing review fixed under Rule 7 of Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2001. Claimant appealed against both … Continue reading Ibrahim v Ethnic Minority Enterprise Centre and others: EAT 18 May 2005
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
EAT Practice and Procedure – Application. The application had been presented timeously at the ET in Edinburgh, but was out of time when retransmitted to Glasgow. The tribunal had found the Edinburgh office to be an area office, and not a regional office and therefore the application was not accepted within the Regulations. The appellant … Continue reading Matheson v Mazars Solutions Ltd: EAT 16 Dec 2003
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 claimant had had mixed success in claims for race discrimination, but appealed orders to pay to the costs of the respondents. She claimed to be impecunious and that that should have been taken into account before deciding whether a costs order should be made against her. Should a costs sanction be available to restrain … Continue reading Dr I Kovacs v Queen Mary and Westfield College and Another: CA 22 Mar 2002
The claimant had brought and lost an action relating to his dismissal by the defendant, who now appealed against an order that he was not estopped from bring a second claim on a different basis namely race discrimination, disapplying the rule in Henderson. Held: The Council’s appeal succeeded. The rule in Henderson should have been … Continue reading Divine-Bortey v London Borough of Brent: CA 14 May 1998
The employment tribunal power to require attendance by a witness includes the power to require a party to attend to give evidence. The consent of either party was not needed for its exercise. Citations: Times 21-Feb-2001, [2001] UKEAT 1266 – 00 – 1201 Links: Bailii Statutes: Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 1996 … Continue reading Clapson v British Airways Plc: EAT 12 Jan 2001
An employment tribunal had no power to dismiss a claim as without a reasonable prospect of success before it was begun to be heard. The power to regulate its own hearings did not include such a power, and the power to dismiss a claim as frivolous or vexatious, or for failure to comply with directions … Continue reading Care First Partnership Ltd v Roffey and Others: CA 22 Nov 2000
Mr Lawson was employed by Serco as a security supervisor at the British RAF base on Ascension Island, which is a dependency of the British Overseas Territory of St Helena. Mr Botham was employed as a youth worker at various Ministry of Defence establishments in Germany; under the NATO Status of Forces Agreement of 1951 … Continue reading Serco Ltd v Lawson; Botham v Ministry of Defence; Crofts and others v Veta Limited: HL 26 Jan 2006
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
The claimant made a claim against his former company and its chairman. The company was dissolved before the proceedings commenced. The chairman did not appear, and a finding of unfair dismissal was made against him. The tribunal made no proper . .
The claimant pursued Employment Tribunal proceedings against the Immigration Service when his security clearance was withdrawn. The Tribunal allowed the respondent to use a closed material procedure under which it was provided with evidence unseen . .