Site icon swarb.co.uk

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: The appellant had not made out a sufficient error in law to allow the tribunal to overturn the interlocutory decision.

Peter Clark J
[1999] UKEAT 452 – 99 – 1304
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
MentionedBastick v James Lane (Turf Accountants) Ltd 1979
The court considered an appeal against a refusal of an adjournment of proceedings before the industrial tribunal when criminal proceedings on the same issues were pending.
Held: The court refused to interfere with the exercise of his dicretion . .
CitedCarter v Credit Change Ltd CA 2-Jan-1979
There are restricted circumstances in which the tribunal can interfere on appeal with the tribunal’s exercise of its discretion. Stephenson LJ said: ‘All the reasons which he gave seem to me to be good reasons for the decision to which he came; many . .
CitedAdams and Raynor v West Sussex County Council 1990
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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.205059

Exit mobile version