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
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 PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-BarkeAlthough this was a ‘narrative’ judgment sufficient substance could be extracted from the decision to demonstrate compliance with rule 30(6) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 SI No. 1861; Balfour Beatty Power Networks Ltd v Wilcox [2006] EWCA Civ 1240, [2007] IRLR 63, Greenwood … Continue reading Sivagnansundarum v Whipps Cross University Hospital NHS Trust: EAT 28 Jun 2011
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Compensation The decisions to apportion compensation, not to award any future loss after April 2008 and to apply an ‘uplift’ of 25% in respect of breach of statutory procedures were neither irrational, nor without evidential foundation nor based on any misdirection and the appeal would be dismissed. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – … Continue reading Joes v The City and County of Swansea: EAT 5 May 2011
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke An Employment Tribunal decision must comply in both form and substance with 30(6) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 SI No. 1861 and failure to do so will amount to an error of law; Balfour Beatty Power Networks Ltd v Wilcox [2006] EWCA … Continue reading Greenwood v NWF Retail Ltd: EAT 18 Feb 2011
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke An Employment Tribunal decision must comply in both form and substance with 30(6) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 SI No. 1861 and failure to do so will amount to an error of law; Balfour Beatty Power Networks Ltd v Wilcox [2006] EWCA … Continue reading Norman and Another v NWF Retail Ltd: EAT 18 Feb 2011
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: 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 : 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 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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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 . .
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
