EAT Practice and Procedure – Review
Employers conceded liability for holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations at the Employment Tribunal. They did so on the basis that the decision of the EAT in List Design Group v Douglas [2002] ICR 636 gave the employee an entitlement with respect to three years’ holiday pay. A few days after the Tribunal decision, the Court of Appeal in Commissioner for Inland Revenue v Ainsworth and Anor. [2005] IRLR 465 held that the approach in List Design was wrong. The effect was to limit the period in respect of which unpaid holiday pay under the Regulations could be claimed. The employers immediately sought a review of the Tribunal’s decision on the grounds that it was in the interests of justice to review it. The Tribunal acceded to that application and reduced the compensation accordingly. It was not suggested by the employee that they should stay the matter pending the decision of the House of Lords. The employee also sought a review on the grounds that the Tribunal had not properly analysed her claims in a particular way. The Tribunal rejected this application. The employee appealed on the grounds that: the Tribunal should not have allowed the employer to withdraw from their concession; that in any event if minded to do so it should have stayed the proceedings pending the decision of the House of Lords in Ainsworth; and that it ought to have acceded to her application for a review. EAT dismissed the appeals and held that no error of law had been shown in the Tribunal’s decision.
Judges:
The Honourable Mr Justice Elias (President)
Citations:
[2006] UKEAT 0459 – 06 – 2811, UKEAT/0459/06
Links:
Employment
Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.247842