EAT Victimisation Discrimination : Whistleblowing – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke – Employment Tribunal failed to explain sufficiently their reasoning on the causation issue in s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996 ‘whistle-blowing’ complaint. Case remitted to same ET for reconsideration.
Peter Clark J
[2013] UKEAT 0279 – 13 – 1102
Bailii
Employment Rights Act 1996 47B
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Knight v London Borough of Harrow EAT 29-Oct-2003
EAT Practice and Procedure – Striking-out/dismissal.
Burton J said: ‘It is thus necessary in a claim under section 47B to show that the fact that the protected disclosure had been made caused or influenced . .
Cited – NHS Manchester v Fecitt and Others CA 25-Oct-2011
The appellant challenged reversal by the EAT of a finding that it had not unlawfully victimised the respondents for the making of a protected disclosure. The claimant had reported a co-worker exaggerating his qualifications. After repeated . .
Cited – Retarded Childrens Aid Society v Day CA 1978
Lord Russell of Killowen said: ‘The function of the Employment Appeal Tribunal is to correct errors of law where one is established and identified. I think care must be taken to avoid concluding that an experienced industrial tribunal by not . .
Cited – Tran v Greenwich Vietnam Community Project CA 25-Apr-2002
The applicant had appealed the dismissal of his case for unfair dismissal. His notice of appeal did not request extended reasons from the tribunal, nor challenged the adequacy of the tribunal’s reasoning. At the EAT he sought to argue that the . .
Cited – Fuller v London Borough of Brent CA 15-Mar-2011
The employers had dismissed the employee for misconduct. The Tribunal found that the employers had a genuine belief in the misconduct alleged and there had been a reasonable investigation. The real issue was whether it was reasonable to dismiss for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.521149