A v B and Another: EAT 18 Feb 1997

The respondents appealed against a finding of unlawful sex discrimination. The claimant had been seeking psychotherapy, and the defendant sought discovery of her therapy history.
Held: The notes may have been relevant, and an order should have been made for their disclosure.


[1997] UKEAT 220 – 97 – 1802




Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993


CitedBritish Railways Board v Natarajan EAT 1979
Arnold J considered when it was appropriate for the company’s confidential material to be disclosed to employee claimants in tribunal proceedings: ‘We think that before deciding whether an examination is necessary, the judge or chairman of the . .
AppliedMedallion Holidays Ltd v Birch 1985
The Chairman of the Industrial Tribunal had struck out the employers’ Notice of Appearance for failure to comply with an order for particulars. Hld: The employers’ appeal to the EAT was dismissed. The court considered a strike out of an application . .
CitedScience Research Council v Nasse; BL Cars Ltd (formerly Leyland Cars) v Voias HL 1-Nov-1979
Recent statutes had given redress to anyone suffering unlawful discrimination on account of race sex or trade union activities. An employee sought discovery of documents from his employer which might reveal such discrimination.
Held: The court . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.207172