Challenge to the lawfulness of the practice of the EAT in referring back to the IT deficient reasons with an invitation to expand upon them.
Held: The words ‘disposing of’ in the section meant ‘dealing with conclusively’ rather than ‘regulating’. However the procedure set down in Burns was to be followed. Nothing in the rules prevented the EAT from requesting further written reasons from the tribunal.
‘As Burton J recognised in Burns . . there are dangers in asking the original tribunal for further reasons where the ground of appeal is inadequacy of reasoning. It will not be appropriate where the inadequacy of reasoning is on its face so fundamental that there is a real risk that supplementary reasons will be reconstructions of proper reasons, rather than the unexpressed actual reasons for the decision.’
Brooke LJ, Buxton LJ, Dyson LJ
 EWCA Civ 578, Times 26-May-2005,  ICR 1373,  IRLR 633
England and Wales
Cited – Burns v Royal Mail Group Plc (No 2) (Formerly Consignia Plc), Humphrey EAT 14-Jan-2004
The hearing was an adjourned second hearing. The appeal on sex discrimination had been dismissed, and the balance of the claim for constructive unfair dismissal was adjourned. At that adjourned hearing the claimant now sought to re-open the claims . .
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 – London Borough of Waltham Forest v Omilaju CA 11-Nov-2004
Final Straw Act – Non-Trivial
The claimant had been involved in protracted disputes with the respondent. The respondent appealed a finding of constructive dismissal and victimisation. He had attended a tribunal hearing and the employer had refused to pay his salary whilst he was . .
Cited – Williams v Ferrosan Ltd EAT 5-Mar-2004
Acting on guidance, the parties representatives and the tribunal had assumed that part of the award relating to loss of future earnings would not be taxable. The question now was whether the tribunal had power of its own motion to review its . .
See Also – Barke v SEETEC Business Technology Centre Ltd EAT 13-Jan-2006
EAT The Tribunal rejected the employee’s claims that there had been constructive unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. On her appeal:
(1) In deciding to reject the constructive unfair dismissal . .
Cited – Jamie v Management Solution Partners Ltd EAT 31-Jan-2006
The claimant received an email from his employers and resigned claiming unfair dismissal saying that it was repudiatory. The employers objected to the admission of the email into evidence saying that it was marked without prejudice and subject to . .
Cited – Woodhouse School v Webster CA 18-Feb-2009
The school appealed against a finding that it had constructively dismissed the claimant. The claimant had refused an order to dismiss a staff member for profound bilateral deafness, saying that that would be unlawful. He had left rather than obey an . .
Cited – Southall v The General Medical Council CA 4-May-2010
The doctor had appealed against an order striking him from the register of medical practitioners. The court having decided that the order could not stand, now considered the appropriate order to make.
Held: It was appropriate to remit the . .
Cited – Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Glencross EAT 16-May-2008
EAT VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Protected disclosure
Dismissal for making a protected disclosure Employment Tribunal decision upheld.
Suffering a detriment for the same reason. Employment Tribunal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.224910