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 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 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
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 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
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
Rule 30(6) of the 2004 Rules, which requires sufficient reasons, is intended to be a guide and not a straitjacket so that if it can be reasonably spelled out from a determination that what the rule requires has been provided by the Tribunal, then no error of law will have been committed. Judges: Buxton LJ, … Continue reading Balfour Beatty Power Networks Ltd and Another v Wilcox and others: CA 20 Jul 2006
EAT The Claimant was employed on a fixed term contract. During the terms of the contract he was dismissed for misconduct and made an application to the Employment Tribunal (ET) claiming unfair dismissal. He appealed but the appeal was heard after the date when the contract would have expired by effluxion of time. The appeal … Continue reading Prakash v Wolverhampton City Council: EAT 1 Sep 2006
EAT Practice and Procedure: Appellate Jurisdiction/Reasons/Burns-Barke – UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Constructive dismissal Reasons The simplification of the wording of the Rule relating to the content of the Reasons (i.e. the change from Rule 30(6) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 to Rule 62(5) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules … Continue reading Vairea v Reed Business Information Ltd: EAT 3 Jun 2016
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – 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
The claimant had been represented at his claim before the employment tribunal by his wife, acting as a lay representative. She asked to be allowed to withdraw the complaint. Without asking her, the complaint was dismissed, and costs awarded against the claimant. He now appealed saying that the tribunal, knowing he was not represented by … Continue reading Drysdale v The Department of Transport (The Maritime and Coastguard Agency): CA 31 Jul 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
moroak_cromieEAT2005 EAT Response lodged at the Employment Tribunal 44 minutes late and the Employment Tribunal ordered that the Respondent could take no part in the proceedings and refused to review that order on the basis it had no jurisdiction to do so. The Employment Tribunal has no power under Rule 4 to entertain an application … Continue reading Moroak T/A Blake Envelopes v Cromie: EAT 19 Apr 2005
casqueiroEAT2012 EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – CostsUnlike for ‘ordinary costs’ under Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 rule 41(1)(c), there is no power to refer wasted costs ordered under rule 48 to be assessed in the County Court. Further, the Employment Judge failed to consider, applying Ridehalgh v Horsefield [1994] Ch 205, … Continue reading Casqueiro (In A Matter of Wasted Costs) v Barclays Bank Plc: EAT 14 Jun 2012
The respondent bus driver had claimed unfair dismissal following an accident. The Employment Tribunal struck out his case as having no reasonable prospect of success, but the case had been re-instated by the EAT. Held: the power given in the rules to strike out a case was draconian and to be used in exceptional cases … Continue reading Tayside Public Transportcompany Ltd (T/A Travel Dundee) v Reilly: SCS 30 May 2012
Guidance for Wasted Costs Orders Guidance was given on the circumstances required for the making of wasted costs orders against legal advisers. A judge invited to make an order arising out of an advocate’s conduct of court proceedings must make full allowance for the fact that an advocate has to make decisions quickly and under … Continue reading Ridehalgh v Horsefield; Allen v Unigate Dairies Ltd: CA 26 Jan 1994
In 2000 the claimant succeeded in his claim for discrimination, but had not pursued his remedy. He now appealed against a refusal to allow him to take it further. He had initially failed to pursue the matter for ill health. He later refused to submit to an examination by the defendant’s medical experts. Held: Whilst … Continue reading Abegaze v Shrewsbury College of Arts and Technology: CA 20 Feb 2009
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 . .
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
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 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
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
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 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
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
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
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
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL The Claimant’s appeal against the finding that she had not been unfairly constructively dismissed was refused on the basis of the facts found by the Employment Tribunal. The Employment Tribunal was entitled to conclude that she had not been dismissed at all, nor had she been the subject of sex or race … Continue reading Uche v Oxfordshire County Council (Unfair Dismissal): EAT 23 May 2013
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
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
amwell_dogherty The claimant had secretly recorded the disciplinary hearings and also the deliberations of the disciplinary panel after their retirement. The tribunal had at a case management hearing admitted the recordings as evidence, and the defendant appealed, saying also that it had been disclosed too late. Held: The evidence contained in the recordings was relevant … Continue reading Amwell View School v Dogherty: EAT 15 Sep 2006
The claimant firm of solicitors sought an order requiring the defendant to amend her employment tribunal claim so as to accord with the partnership agreement to which she was party, and to submit to arbitration. The defendant said that statutory provisions said that her freedom to go to court could not be ousted, and that … Continue reading Clyde and Co Llp and Another v Winkelhof: QBD 22 Mar 2011
The claimant had been summarily dismissed. His application at first made no mention of a complaint that it had related to his trades union activities. He wrote to the secretary seeking amendment of his claim to include a claim that his dismissal was automatically unfair by reason of those activities. By this time the three … Continue reading Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore: EAT 2 May 1996
outasightEAT201411 EAT Practice and Procedure: Review – Reconsideration – Rule 70 Schedule 1 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 – fresh evidence – interests of justice Having lost his claim for wrongful dismissal/breach of contract before the Employment Tribunal, the Claimant applied for a reconsideration of that Judgment on the basis that … Continue reading Outasight VB Ltd v Brown: EAT 21 Nov 2014
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
