Kyamanywa v London Borough of Hackney: CA 5 Jun 2003

An issue was whether a notice had been sent to solicitors as the authorised representative of the Appellant. The Appellant had occasionally used one firm of solicitors but at other times she had acted in person at the hearing and also when communicating with the Tribunal.
Held: The tribunal’s decision that notice had been sent to the solicitors as authorised representatives was approved (Mummery LJ): ‘In my judgment there was no error of law in the decision of the review tribunal regarding non-receipt of notice. On that point I agree with the submissions made by Miss Maclaren on behalf of the council. It is clear, reading the extended reasons of the review tribunal, that they made findings of fact on that point without any error of law. The applicant accepted in her evidence to them that she had instructed Balogun Kirvan to act on her behalf throughout. They had instructed counsel to appear in the tribunal on her behalf at an earlier hearing; they had corresponded with the tribunal as her solicitors; and the tribunal had corresponded with them and sent notices and documents to them. The evidence adduced on behalf of the applicant did not establish that either the applicant or Balogun Kirvan had even given any notice to the tribunal under regulation 20(4), indicating that the tribunal should now send notices and documents to her personally rather than to the firm of solicitors who had started to act for her.’


Mummery LJ


[2003] EWCA Civ 902




England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedShah v Haden Building Management Ltd EAT 28-Sep-2005
The tribunal had served a pre-hearing notice on employment dispute consultants who had acted for the claimant, but who had reserved their position in correspondence with the employers, and had asked that any documents be served on the claimant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.184607