EAT Victimisation Discrimination : Whistleblowing
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Perversity
Appeal dismissed.
The Respondent’s principal ground of appeal – ground 2 – was a perversity ground. Perversity was not made out.
A secondary ground – ground 3 – argued that the ET had erred in law by relying, in respect of one Claimant, on detriments which were not pleaded. The ET had not fallen into this error.
Another secondary ground – ground 1 – argued that the ET had erred in law by relying in respect of both Claimants on another detriment which was not pleaded. But the Claimants had not known of the detriment prior to disclosure during the hearing; they had raised it as an issue as soon as they were aware of it; it was dealt with in evidence and submissions at the hearing; and no pleading point had been taken at the hearing. It was not permissible to take the point for the first time on appeal.
David Richardson HHJ
[2016] UKEAT 0306 – 15 – 0308
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 26 October 2021; Ref: scu.570386
