Site icon swarb.co.uk

London Borough of Southwark v Jiminez: CA 8 Apr 2003

The appellant authority complained that the tribunal had expressed its view strongly before hearing the evidence and had so demonstrated that its mind was closed.
Held: There was no inevitability that a strongly expressed conditional view amounted to a pre-judgement or a closed mind. Nevertheless a tribunal expressing a view would be well advised to make it quite clear that the view was preliminary only. The more trenchant the view expressed the greater the need for clarity.

Judges:

Peter Gibson, Clarke LJJ, Richards J

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 502, Gazette 12-Jun-2003, [2003] IRLR 477, [2003] ICR 1176

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

LeaveLondon Borough of Southwark v Jiminez CA 31-Jul-2002
Renewed application for leave to appeal – granted on limited grounds . .

Cited by:

CitedWagner (Advocates’ Conduct – Fair Hearing) UTIAC 6-Nov-2015
UTIAC (i) Legitimate advocacy does not extend to aggressive questioning of, or confrontation with, a party or witness. The Tribunal should intervene where this occurs.
(ii) Similarly, mere comments by an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Natural Justice

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.181174

Exit mobile version