The EAT considered the application of the rule in Henderson v Henderson in Employment Appeal Tribunal proceedings.
Knox J said: ‘The majority is fortified in the view expressed so far by three further considerations. First, this jurisdiction is intended to provide a speedy remedy. The taking of fresh points on appeal militates against that. In this particular case the events in issue if they include those of 3 May 1988 are now close on three and a half years old. If the appeal is to succeed on this point there would have to be a fresh hearing of the application made under s.68(6) of the Act on matters that are now very stale. Secondly, as between Mr Dimtsu and the Council there can be no doubt but that the responsibility lies on Mr Dimtsu’s side regarding the failure to make an application under s.68(6) of the Act. Thirdly, we regard it as important that the principles set out in Kumchyk v Derby County Council be upheld, and not eroded by qualifications based upon inferences which a chairman of an Industrial Tribunal might make. In saying this the majority would not wish to cast any doubt on the propriety of the long-established practice whereby chairmen of Industrial Tribunals give assistance where it is needed in the formulation and presentation of the cases of persons before them, be they applicant or respondent, who have not got the benefit of professional representation and indeed on some occasions when they have such representation. But this must be a matter for the judgment of the Industrial Tribunal in each individual case and should not be erected into an obligation which if not fully complied with leads to a conclusion that an error in law has been committed.’
Judges:
Knox J
Citations:
[1991] IRLR 450
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Henderson v Henderson 20-Jul-1843
Abuse of Process and Re-litigation
The court set down the principles to be applied in abuse of process cases, where a matter was raised again which should have been dealt with in earlier proceedings.
Sir James Wigram VC said: ‘In trying this question I believe I state the rule . .
Cited – Kumchyk v Derby County Council EAT 1978
The appellant sought to advance an argument that a certain term was implied into the contract of employment which, for its consideration, would have required consideration of a factual framework which had not been explored in evidence.
Held: . .
Cited by:
Cited – Divine-Bortey v London Borough of Brent CA 14-May-1998
The claimant had brought and lost an action relating to his dismissal by the defendant, who now appealed against an order that he was not estopped from bring a second claim on a different basis namely race discrimination, disapplying the rule in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.293902