The claimant asserted the appearance of prejudice in the tribunal which had heard his claim.
Held: The claim was unfounded. Courts should acknowledge that there was always a risk of causing suspicion if untoward remarks were made, and a court should be careful. Nevertheless, the appeal was dismissed.
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal.
Judges:
His Honour Judge Peter Clark
Citations:
EAT/1375/98
Links:
Statutes:
Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 1993 13(2)(d)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Tchoula v Netto Foodstores Ltd EAT 6-Mar-1998
A bald statement saying that X’s evidence was preferred to Y’s is implausible and unreasoned and unacceptable; included simply to try and prevent any appeal. It is likely that there will be a great deal of background material which is . .
Cited by:
See Also – Deman v Victoria University of Manchester EAT 28-Sep-1999
. .
See Also – Leavers v The Victoria University of Manchester EAT 21-Feb-2000
EAT Sex Discrimination – Direct
EAT Sex Discrimination – Direct . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.171622
