The claimant’s appeals against two decisions of the Employment Tribunal, made in different proceedings brought against the respondent, were heard together.
In the first appeal, the claimant challenged the Employment Tribunal’s refusal to reconsider its earlier judgment dismissing the respondent’s application to strike out three claims brought by the claimant. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that there had been a procedural irregularity in the way in which the Employment Tribunal had dealt with the reconsideration application, but that it was not material to the outcome because the claimant (who had successfully resisted the application to strike out her claims) was seeking changes to the Employment Tribunal’s reasons for refusing the respondent’s application, rather than a change in the result. Applying AB v The Home Office UKEAT/0363/13/JOJ, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the application for reconsideration was not one permitted by the relevant provisions of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. The appeal against the Employment Tribunal’s refusal to reconsider was dismissed.
In the second appeal, the claimant challenged the Employment Tribunal’s decision to dismiss a fourth claim brought against the respondent after a full merits hearing.
The claimant contended that the tribunal which heard the fourth claim had erred in law in refusing an application to adjourn the hearing on medical grounds because there were not ‘exceptional circumstances’ as required under rule 30A of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the tribunal had not erred in law in concluding that there were not ‘exceptional circumstances’ and so refusing the application to adjourn, Morton v Eastleigh Citizens’ Advice Bureau [2020] EWCA Civ 638 considered and applied.
The claimant challenged various elements of the tribunal’s decision to dismiss her fourth claim on the merits as being perverse or otherwise failing to take into account relevant matters. The Employment Appeal Tribunal rejected the claimant’s arguments, holding that the tribunal’s decision was open to it and none of the alleged errors of law had been established.
The claimant also appealed the Employment Tribunal’s decision to refuse her application for an order under rule 50 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that there was no error of law in the decision to refuse the rule 50 application and that the Employment Tribunal had correctly held that the claimant’s Article 8 rights were not engaged where the matter in issue was her conduct at a preliminary hearing in the Employment Tribunal which had been held ‘in private’.
[2021] UKEAT 2019-000480
Bailii
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.669831
