The EAT does not have a general power of review of interlocutory orders made by Industrial Tribunals or a Chairman. An appellant must convince the appeal tribunal that the Industrial Tribunal had erred in legal principle in the exercise of the discretion or had failed to take into account relevant considerations or had taken irrelevant factors into account, or that no reasonable tribunal, properly directing itself could have refused the amendment. Wood P said that three questions should be answered: ‘(a) Is the order made one within the powers given to the tribunal? (b) Has the discretion been exercised within guiding legal principles)? . . (c) Can the exercise of the discretion be attacked on the principles in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation?’
Judges:
Wood J P
Citations:
[1990] ICR 546
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Bull Information Systems Ltd v Joy and Rose EAT 13-Apr-1999
The claimants complained of unfair dismissal. The appellant company said that the contracts, as apprenticeships, did not give rise to continuous service accruals. The company appealed against a refusal of an adjournment of the hearing.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.403025