EAT Practice and Procedure: Appearance/Response, Review and Appellate Jurisdiction/Burns-Barke
When a Respondent has been debarred from taking part in proceedings under ET Rule 9, he may request Reasons from the ET for the purpose of an application for review, but not for any other purpose (and, consequently, at least pending any legislative change to Rule 9, a request for such Reasons intended solely for the purpose of considering an appeal can only be achieved by asking the EAT to exercise its powers under Rule 30(3)(b)). Because of the draconian effect of a Rule 9 order, a Tribunal must be aware of disproportionate consequences, for example the effect on a Respondent of being debarred from resisting quantum as well as liability. In any event, review opportunities at the EAT (by reference to Pendragon where appropriate) should be taken up. Doubted whether there is power to order or lay down a condition that an undisputed sum be paid over by an appellant.
Judges:
The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (President)
Citations:
UKEAT/0663/05, [2005] UKEAT 0663 – 05 – 1412, [2006] ICR 450
Links:
Statutes:
Employment Tribunal’s (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Consignia Plc v Russell Sealy CA 19-Jun-2002
The complainant was a post office employee. He brought a claim for unfair dismissal, but he posted it at a time when in the normal course of delivery, it would not arrive. He claimed to be unaware of the normal times for delivery.
Held: It was . .
Cited – Kwik Save Stores Ltd v Swain EAT 1997
An appellate court whose jurisdiction is limited to matters of law can only interfere where there has been a breach of well-established legal principles such as failing to take account of relevant factors.
When considering barring a party for . .
Cited – Pendragon Plc T/A CD Bramall Bradford v Copus EAT 11-Jul-2005
EAT Practice and Procedure
Response served by Respondent out of time and judgment in default entered. Chairman found that pursuant to Rule 33 of the new Rules he had no discretion to review the default . .
Cited – Bolch v Chipman EAT 19-May-2003
EAT The EAT considered the consequences, of a decision to strike out a Notice of Appearance under Rule 15(2)(d).
Held: The EAT will require an employment tribunal, among other things, to consider the . .
Cited – Atos Origin IT Services UK Ltd v Haddock EAT 21-Jul-2004
EAT Practice and Procedure – Appellate jurisdiction/Reasons/Burns-Barke.- 8(R): Respondent who has not entered Notice of Appearance in Employment Tribunal held entitled to appeal on remedy.
12(J): Applicant . .
Cited by:
See Also – NSM Music Ltd v Leefe EAT 20-Jun-2006
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Polkey deduction
Appeal on basis that Chairman failed to consider whether a Polkey deduction was appropriate in a failure to consult redundancy unfair dismissal. Respondent had been . .
Cited – Terry Ballard and Co (A Firm) v Stonestreet EAT 11-Jan-2007
EAT Practice and Procedure – Review; Insolvency
A Respondent debarred under rule 4(1) and 9 may apply for a review and, if granted, appear as a full party. Otherwise there is no purpose in allowing it to . .
Cited – American E-Z Self Storage Ltd v Prince EAT 2-May-2008
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: – Appearance/response – Costs – Appellant failed to put in a response. Default judgment entered. Appellant applied for review. Respondent had been employed for less than 12 months but . .
Cited – D and H Travel Ltd, Henderson v Foster EAT 24-Jul-2006
EAT The employee made a claim for sexual harassment against her employer and an individual who effectively ran the company. No response was entered and the Chairman entered a default judgment on liability only. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.237658