The claimant appealed, asserting bias in the Tribunal chairman. The respondents and chairman himself had filed statements contradicting what the claimant said, and the EAT was unable to determine the issue without first hearing evidence as to the conflict.
Judges:
Charles J
Citations:
[1999] UKEAT 966 – 98 – 0107, [2001] ICR 287, FA 13
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Facey v Midas Retail Security and Another EAT 9-May-2000
facey_midasEAT2000
The EAT considered how it should deal with allegations of bias in members of the Tribunal, and particularly where there are differences as to the facts of what occurred.
Held: It is sometimes appropriate for the EAT to hear live evidence in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.205432