EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity
VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Whistleblowing
VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Protected disclosure
The Appellant’s whistleblowing claim was dismissed by the Employment Tribunal in 2012. Her application dated 7 September 2012 for a review under Rule 34(3) of the 2004 Rules was permitted to proceed to a hearing in terms which expressly referred to her ‘extended application’, which was contained in a document dated 1 October 2012. Before the hearing she supplied a number of further written submissions and a skeleton argument. The hearing proceeded and the review was dismissed by the Employment Tribunal in 2013.
In 2015 the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal against the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s refusal of the Appellant’s Rule 3(10) application in respect of the Review Decision. In 2016 it was discovered that the Employment Tribunal had by error not had the extended application before it at the Review Hearing nor when subsequently considering its Decision. The Appellant added a free-standing ground of appeal that this was a serious procedural irregularity; that a different conclusion might otherwise have been reached; and that the application should be remitted for a rehearing. The Respondent submitted that the extended application added nothing of substance to the documents and oral submissions which the Employment Tribunal had considered; and that the same conclusion would have been reached in any event. The appeal was allowed and the application remitted to the same Employment Tribunal constitution for the review to be heard.
Judges:
Soole J
Citations:
[2017] UKEAT 0311 – 15 – 1505
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.590416
