EAT JURSIDICTIONAL POINTS – Fraud and illegality
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
New evidence on appeal
Costs
On the Respondent’s concession that the Employment Tribunal had erred in deciding, without it being submitted to it, that the Claimant’s contract of employment was tainted by illegality and that it had no jurisdiction to hear her claims, the alternative Judgment on unappealed findings on the merits of her unfair dismissal and discrimination claims was unarguably correct. The subsequent order for andpound;10,000 costs was not appealed.
The EAT ordered EAT costs in part of andpound;1,000 as the Claimant while legally represented had unreasonably pressed on after the EAT’s costs warning at the preliminary hearing.
Respondent’s application to rely on the Claimant’s post-hearing convictions refused.
Citations:
[2010] UKEAT 0412 – 09 – 1105
Links:
Employment
Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.416804