The industrial tribunal had refused the applicant an extension of time.
Held: The Tribunal mistook the law in holding that it could grant a review of its decision because the employee’s case had not been properly argued at the preliminary hearing as a result of her representative’s shortcomings. It would not be in the interests of justice for there to be a review on such grounds. Even though the ‘interests of justice’ ground for review is in very wide terms, it must be cautiously exercised. Failings of a representative will not generally constitute a ground for review because that would risk encouraging disappointed applicants to seek to re-argue cases by blaming their representatives.
Resort to this ground of review should be limited to cases of: ‘a ‘procedural mishap’ or ‘procedural shortcoming,’ or ‘procedural occurrence’ of a kind which constitutes a denial to a party of a fair and proper opportunity to present a case.’ and ‘Failings of a party’s representatives, professional or otherwise, will not generally constitute a ground for review. That is a dangerous path to follow. It involves the risk of encouraging a disappointed applicant to seek to reargue his case by blaming his representative for the failure of his claim. That may involve the tribunal in inappropriate investigations into the competence of the representative who is not present at or represented at the review. If there is a justified complaint against the representative, that may be the subject of other proceedings and procedure. It is thus our view that the industrial tribunal erred in law in granting a review under rule 10(1)(e) of the Rules of Procedure of 1985.’
Judges:
Mummery P
Citations:
Times 27-Jan-1994, [1994] IRLR 318, [1994] ICR 384
Statutes:
Race Relations Act 1968 68(1), Industrial Tribunals (Rules of Procedure) Regulations 1985
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Flint v Eastern Electricity Board EAT 1975
The employee had failed to mention at the hearing of his claim for a redundancy payment a fact which was arguably highly material to the issue of whether his refusal of alternative employment was reasonable; and his claim had been dismissed. He . .
Cited – Trimble v Supertravel Ltd EAT 1982
The Industrial Tribunal had held that the appellant’s dismissal was unfair but then decided that she had failed to mitigate her loss. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Tribunal announced its decision and stated that she was to get no . .
Cited by:
Cited – Stanley Cole (Wainfleet) Ltd v Sheridan CA 25-Jul-2003
The employment tribunal, in delivering its judgment had cited a decision which was not among those referred to by the parties, but it did not give an opportunity to them to comment on it before delivering its decision.
Held: Such an ommission . .
Cited – Sodexho Ltd v Gibbons EAT 14-Jul-2005
EAT Deposit ordered. Order lost in post due to the Claimant putting wrong post-code on ET1. Review. Distinguishing Judgments from Orders. Strike-out. Extending time. . .
Cited – Council of The City of Newcastle Upon Tyne v Marsden (Rev 1) EAT 23-Jan-2010
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Review
Claim under Disability Discrimination Act 1995 dismissed at PHR because Claimant not available to give evidence as to long-term effect of injury – Judge willing to offer . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.185968