The failure of a tribunal to promulgate its decision was a matter of fact not of law, and could not therefore itself be a ground of appeal to the EAT. The EAT had allowed an appeal on the fair trial provision of the Convention. A failure to promulgate an opinion in a timely manner could lead to a claim against the state for failing to provide a fair trial, but not to an appeal. There was no incompatibility between the rule and convention rights.
Judges:
Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, Mummery, Dyson LJJ
Citations:
[2005] EWCA Civ 14, Times 15-Feb-2005
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Kwamin v Abbey National Plc; Birminingham City Council v Mtize; Martin v London Borough of Southwark; Connex South Eastern Ltd vBangs EAT 9-Feb-2004
EAT Practice and Procedure – Appellate jurisdiction/Reasons/Burns-Barke.
Four cases of delay in promulgation of ET decisions. Three allowed (7.5 months, 12 months, 14.5 months) and one dismissed (4 months). . .
Cited – Cobham v Frett PC 18-Dec-2000
(British Virgin Islands) Two issues arose. First, what was the consequence of inordinate delay between a judge hearing a case and giving his decision, and secondly, how was the law of adverse possession to be applied in cases of interrupted or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Discrimination
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222039