EAT Practice and Procedure: Review – Compromise By the first of two appeals, the Claimant appealed against the decision of a Regional Employment Judge to reject at the preliminary consideration stage his application for a review of a decision of a different Judge to reject his claim for interim relief on the ground that he … Continue reading Benney v Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs: EAT 6 Feb 2015
EAT National Security – An immigration officer, C employed by the Home Office was suspended, his security clearance withdrawn, and then dismissed, all without any reason being given to him. He claimed it was because of discrimination against him on the grounds of race/religion. Rule 54 (National Security) was held to apply, and C was … Continue reading Kiani v Secretary of State for The Home Department: EAT 21 Nov 2014
EAT Practice and Procedure: Striking-Out/Dismissal – The Employment Judge decided to hear the case in the Claimant’s absence and dismissed her claims. The issue in the appeal was whether he was required, under Rule 27(6) 2004 ET Rules, to enquire of the Respondent whether they would produce written submissions and bundle exchanged by the Claimant … Continue reading Brindle v Fylde Motor Company Ltd: EAT 7 Oct 2014
EAT Practice and Procedure : Costs – Employment Tribunal award of costs Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 Schedule 1 rr.38-42 Pursuant to r.41(2), the means of the paying party might be taken into account in considering (1) whether to make an award of costs; and/or (2) as to how much should … Continue reading Flint v Coventry University: EAT 9 Sep 2014
EAT Practice and Procedure : Costs – ET Costs Award – ET (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 Schedule 1 Appeal from Judgment awarding costs against the Claimant upon the remitted hearing of the Respondent’s application for costs (see previous EAT Judgment in this matter, under UKEAT/0144/12). When deciding whether the threshold had been … Continue reading Oni v NHS Leicester City (Formerly Leicester City Primary Care): EAT 14 Aug 2014
EAT Practice and Procedure : Striking-Out/Dismissal – Costs The Claimant had an opportunity to give reasons orally why an order should not be made before her claim was struck out: rule 19(1) of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2004 was complied with. The Employment Tribunal did not err in law in making the striking out order. … Continue reading Johnson v United Kingdom Border Agency: EAT 7 Aug 2014
EAT Practice and Procedure : Costs – Employment Tribunal refusal to make an award of costs – ET Rules 2004 When deciding it would not be appropriate to make an award of costs (having determined that the threshold for such an award had otherwise been crossed) did the Employment Judge err in taking into account: … Continue reading Mardner v Gardner and Another: EAT 25 Jul 2014
EAT Practice and Procedure : Costs – ET Order of Costs – Rule 41(2) ET Rules 2004 Where threshold crossed for Employment Tribunal costs jurisdiction to be engaged (as the Employment Judge was entitled to find here), it is still a matter of judicial discretion as to whether such an award should be made. In … Continue reading Hammond v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: EAT 28 Jul 2014
EAT Practice and Procedure : Costs – Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 Schedule 1 Rule 40(2) and (3) Simply because the Employment Tribunal’s costs jurisdiction was engaged, costs did not follow the event: the Tribunal still needed to be satisfied that it would be appropriate to make an award of costs, … Continue reading Ayoola v St Christopher’s Fellowship: EAT 6 Jun 2014
The claimant had been represented at his claim before the employment tribunal by his wife, acting as a lay representative. She asked to be allowed to withdraw the complaint. Without asking her, the complaint was dismissed, and costs awarded against the claimant. He now appealed saying that the tribunal, knowing he was not represented by … Continue reading Drysdale v The Department of Transport (The Maritime and Coastguard Agency): CA 31 Jul 2014
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 applied for a review. Held: The court was asked whether, and in what … Continue reading Flint v Eastern Electricity Board: EAT 1975
There had been a trial of 35 days regarding rights of way over land, which had proved fruitless, and where some orders had been made without jurisdiction. The result had been inconclusive. The costs order was now appealed, the plaintiff complaining that the judge had failed to take into account an offer of settlement made … Continue reading Cutts v Head and Another: CA 7 Dec 1983
Mr Lawson was employed by Serco as a security supervisor at the British RAF base on Ascension Island, which is a dependency of the British Overseas Territory of St Helena. Mr Botham was employed as a youth worker at various Ministry of Defence establishments in Germany; under the NATO Status of Forces Agreement of 1951 … Continue reading Serco Ltd v Lawson; Botham v Ministry of Defence; Crofts and others v Veta Limited: HL 26 Jan 2006
Use of ‘Without Prejudice Save as to Costs” A sub-contractor sought payment from the appellants under a construction contract for additional expenses incurred through disruption and delay. The appellants said they were liable to pay the costs, and were entitled to re-imbursement from the client, the respondent. The claim was compromised but without disclosing the … Continue reading Rush and Tompkins Ltd v Greater London Council and Another: HL 1988
EAT Practice and Procedure : Application for review of judgment in default Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 ET1 sent to Respondent by Employment Tribunal but not received. Application for review initially failing to comply with requirements of r.33(2) ET Rules 2004. Later application/amendment of original application in correct form. Application still … Continue reading Camden Federation of Tenants and Residents Association v Hayward: EAT 28 Feb 2014
EAT Practice and Procedure : Admissibility of Evidence – The Employment Judge had misdirected herself on the ‘without prejudice’ rule. She had looked only in the correspondence itself for an actual ‘dispute’ and by failing to consider the factual matrix in which the correspondence arose she had misdirected herself by excluding the possibility of ‘a … Continue reading Portnykh v Nomura International Plc: EAT 5 Nov 2013
EAT Practice and Procedure : Appellate Jurisdiction/Reasons/Burns-Barke – Case remitted to same Employment Tribunal for Meek compliant reasons, the original ET decision being that of the majority lay members, by first EAT. Further reasons then produced, following a further ET hearing and signed by lay members but not the Employment Judge. No Judgment/reasons complying with … Continue reading Rustamova v The Governors of Calder High School: EAT 4 Dec 2013
EAT Practice and Procedure : Appellate Jurisdiction or Reasons or Burns-Barke – Case remitted to same Employment Tribunal for Meek compliant reasons, the original ET decision being that of the majority lay members, by first EAT. Further reasons then produced, following a further ET hearing and signed by lay members but not the Employment Judge. … Continue reading Rustamova v Calder High School: EAT 14 Nov 2013
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL The Claimant’s appeal against the finding that she had not been unfairly constructively dismissed was refused on the basis of the facts found by the Employment Tribunal. The Employment Tribunal was entitled to conclude that she had not been dismissed at all, nor had she been the subject of sex or race … Continue reading Uche v Oxfordshire County Council (Unfair Dismissal): EAT 23 May 2013
EAT Practice and Procedure : Bias, Misconduct and Procedural Irregularity – Costs – The Employment Tribunal did not comply with rule 38(9) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure (Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004) in that it did not afford the Claimant an opportunity – which means … Continue reading Gwara v Mid Essex Primary Care Trust: EAT 17 Jul 2013
A petition had been lodged alleging unfair prejudice in the conduct of the company’s affairs. The defendants alleged that when applying for relief under section 459, the claimants had attempted to pervert the course of justice by producing forged or falsified documentation in discovery. The forgery was admitted. Held: If a party to litigation behaved … Continue reading Arrow Nominees Inc and Another v Blackledge and Others: CA 22 Jun 2000
The defendant company appealed against an order re-instating the claimants’ claims for damages for race discrimination and victimisation after they had been struck out for wilful disobedience of the tribunal’s orders. Held: When making a strike-out order, there were two cardinal conditions at least one of which must be met. Either the unreasonable conduct has … Continue reading Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James: CA 25 May 2006
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Striking-out/dismissalThe Employment Judge did not err, whether as a matter of law or as a matter of the exercise of his case management powers, in the circumstances and on the medical evidence, in striking out this claim, pursuant to Rule 18(7)(f) of the ET Rules 2004, on the ground that … Continue reading Riley v The Crown Prosecution Service: EAT 13 Jun 2012
moroak_cromieEAT2005 EAT Response lodged at the Employment Tribunal 44 minutes late and the Employment Tribunal ordered that the Respondent could take no part in the proceedings and refused to review that order on the basis it had no jurisdiction to do so. The Employment Tribunal has no power under Rule 4 to entertain an application … Continue reading Moroak T/A Blake Envelopes v Cromie: EAT 19 Apr 2005
The system under which the registered keeper of a vehicle was obliged to identify herself as the driver, and such admission was to be used subsequently as evidence against her on a charge of driving with excess alcohol, was not a breach of her right to a fair trial. The right not to give evidence … Continue reading Stott (Procurator Fiscal, Dunfermline) and Another v Brown: PC 5 Dec 2000
The claimant’s case had been struck out after non-compliance with an order to file further particulars. His appeal was allowed by the EAT, and the School now itself appealed, saying that the employment judge had wrongly had felt obliged to have regard to the Civil Procedure Rules on striking cases out. Held: The school’s appeal … Continue reading St Albans Girls School and Another v Neary: CA 12 Nov 2009
The claimant had submitted a grievance complaining in general terms of the way in which she had been treated by a manager. She did not, however, refer to a particular incident relied on in her pleading as one of the two ‘last straw’ incidents that led to her resignation. The respondent contended that by reason … Continue reading Shergold v Fieldway Medical Centre: EAT 5 Dec 2005
The company made selections for redundancy, but failed to give the appellants information about how the scoring system had resulted in the figures allocated. The calculations left their representative unable to challenge them on appeal. The procedure adopted did not follow the statutory rules, but the tribunal had found the dismissals to be fair. The … Continue reading Alexander and Hatherley v Bridgen Enterprises Ltd: EAT 12 Apr 2006
casqueiroEAT2012 EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – CostsUnlike for ‘ordinary costs’ under Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 rule 41(1)(c), there is no power to refer wasted costs ordered under rule 48 to be assessed in the County Court. Further, the Employment Judge failed to consider, applying Ridehalgh v Horsefield [1994] Ch 205, … Continue reading Casqueiro (In A Matter of Wasted Costs) v Barclays Bank Plc: EAT 14 Jun 2012
The defendant’s negotiators had asserted in an expressly ‘without prejudice’ meeting, that the plaintiff was infringing its patent and they threatened to bring an action for infringement. The plaintiff sought to bring a threat action under section 70 relying on the statements. The judge held the statement inadmissible. Held: The plaintiff’s appeal failed. Where there … Continue reading Unilever plc v Procter and Gamble Company: CA 4 Nov 1999
The defendant effectively sought to appeal against his conviction on his own guilty plea to possession of wild bird eggs. They had been collected before possession itself was made an offence, and he had received them before the 2004 Act, after which only the person originally collecting an egg could lawfully possess it. He said … Continue reading Dodsworth v Crown Prosecution Service: Admn 8 Nov 2010
The claimants, airline pilots, and the company disputed the application of the 1998 Regulations to their employment. They sought pay for their annual leave made up of three elements: a proportionate part of the fixed annual sum paid for their services, a supplementary payment which varied according to the time spent flying, and thirdly an … Continue reading British Airways Plc v Williams and Others: SC 17 Oct 2012
Misfeasance in Public Office – Recklessness The bank sought to strike out the claim alleging misfeasance in public office in having failed to regulate the failed bank, BCCI. Held: Misfeasance in public office might occur not only when a company officer acted to injure a party, but also where he acted with knowledge of, or … Continue reading Three Rivers District Council and Others v Governor and Company of The Bank of England (No 3): HL 22 Mar 2001
The respondent bus driver had claimed unfair dismissal following an accident. The Employment Tribunal struck out his case as having no reasonable prospect of success, but the case had been re-instated by the EAT. Held: the power given in the rules to strike out a case was draconian and to be used in exceptional cases … Continue reading Tayside Public Transportcompany Ltd (T/A Travel Dundee) v Reilly: SCS 30 May 2012
amwell_dogherty The claimant had secretly recorded the disciplinary hearings and also the deliberations of the disciplinary panel after their retirement. The tribunal had at a case management hearing admitted the recordings as evidence, and the defendant appealed, saying also that it had been disclosed too late. Held: The evidence contained in the recordings was relevant … Continue reading Amwell View School v Dogherty: EAT 15 Sep 2006
The claimant firm of solicitors sought an order requiring the defendant to amend her employment tribunal claim so as to accord with the partnership agreement to which she was party, and to submit to arbitration. The defendant said that statutory provisions said that her freedom to go to court could not be ousted, and that … Continue reading Clyde and Co Llp and Another v Winkelhof: QBD 22 Mar 2011
Conditions for new evidence on appeal At the trial, the wife of the appellant’s opponent said she had forgotten certain events. After the trial she began divorce proceedings, and informed the appellant that she now remembered. He sought either to appeal admitting fresh evidence, or for a retrial. Held: The Court of Appeal refused to … Continue reading Ladd v Marshall: CA 29 Nov 1954
The defendant hospital had custody of sperm samples given by the claimants in the course of fertility treatment. The samples were effectively destroyed when the fridge malfunctioned. Each claimant was undergoing chemotherapy which would prevent them providing future samples. They appealed a finding that they they had no losses, based on the suggestion that the … Continue reading Yearworth and others v North Bristol NHS Trust: CA 4 Feb 2009
The claimant was a former Kenyan minister. He had been visiting the UK for medical treatment. His visas were cancelled on the basis that his presence was not conducive to the public good. Public Interest Immunity certificates had been issued to prevent his seeing some the evidence on which the orders had been made. A … Continue reading Murungaru v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others: CA 12 Sep 2008
The claimant telecoms companies objected to a proposed scheme for future licensing of available spectrum. The scheme anticipated a bias in favour of auctioniung such content. It was not agreed whether any challenge to the decision should be by way of appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal or by judicial review. The CAT had declined … Continue reading T-Mobile (Uk) Ltd. and Another v Office of Communications: CA 12 Dec 2008
The rules contained two occasions on which a court would consider dismissal of a claim as having ‘no real prospect’ of success. Held: The only significant difference between CPR 24.2 and 13.3(1), is that under the first the overall burden of proof rests upon the claimant to establish that there are grounds for his belief … Continue reading E D and F Man Liquid Products Ltd v Patel and Another: CA 4 Apr 2003
The claimant had been summarily dismissed. His application at first made no mention of a complaint that it had related to his trades union activities. He wrote to the secretary seeking amendment of his claim to include a claim that his dismissal was automatically unfair by reason of those activities. By this time the three … Continue reading Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore: EAT 2 May 1996
Allowance of Stigma Damages The employees claimed damages, saying that the way in which their employer had behaved during their employment had led to continuing losses, ‘stigma damages’ after the termination. Held: It is an implied term of any contract of employment that the employer shall not without reasonable and proper cause conduct itself in … Continue reading Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI); Mahmud v Bank of Credit and Commerce International: HL 12 Jun 1997
raggett_lewisEAT2012 EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – CostsIn determining the amount of costs to be awarded having decided that the bringing of an unfair dismissal claim was misconceived and that a costs order should be made against the Claimant paying party, applying Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council v Yerrakalva [2012] IRLR 78 to the exercise of their … Continue reading Raggett v John Lewis Plc: EAT 17 Aug 2012
Mrs Lindqvist had set up an internet site for her local parish containing information about some of her colleagues in the parish. She gave names, jobs, hobbies and in one case some of the person’s employment and medical details. The Court decided that she had processed the personal data of her colleagues. Questions were referred … Continue reading Criminal proceedings against Lindqvist: ECJ 6 Nov 2003
Guidance for Wasted Costs Orders Guidance was given on the circumstances required for the making of wasted costs orders against legal advisers. A judge invited to make an order arising out of an advocate’s conduct of court proceedings must make full allowance for the fact that an advocate has to make decisions quickly and under … Continue reading Ridehalgh v Horsefield; Allen v Unigate Dairies Ltd: CA 26 Jan 1994
Adverse Comments by Judge Need not be Show of Bias In five cases, leave to appeal was sought on the basis that a party had been refused disqualification of judges on grounds of bias. The court considered the circumstances under which a fear of bias in a court may prove to be well founded: ‘The … Continue reading Locabail (UK) Ltd, Regina v Bayfield Properties Ltd: CA 17 Nov 1999
Challenge to the lawfulness of the practice of the EAT in referring back to the IT deficient reasons with an invitation to expand upon them. Held: The words ‘disposing of’ in the section meant ‘dealing with conclusively’ rather than ‘regulating’. However the procedure set down in Burns was to be followed. Nothing in the rules … Continue reading Barke v Seetec Business Technology Centre Ltd: CA 16 May 2005
In 2000 the claimant succeeded in his claim for discrimination, but had not pursued his remedy. He now appealed against a refusal to allow him to take it further. He had initially failed to pursue the matter for ill health. He later refused to submit to an examination by the defendant’s medical experts. Held: Whilst … Continue reading Abegaze v Shrewsbury College of Arts and Technology: CA 20 Feb 2009
The claimant appealed against dismissal of her claim. She had been head of Child Services at Haringey. After the notorious violent death of Baby P, the Secretary of State called for an inquiry under the Act. He then removed her as director. She claimed that the dismissal was unfair, not having been given opportunity to … Continue reading Shoesmith, Regina (on The Application of) v OFSTED and Others: CA 27 May 2011
Claimant provided appropriate details of the claim EAT Application to ET rejected by ET under Rules 1-3 of the 2004 Rules of Procedure contained in Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 because claimant did not provide ‘details of the claim’ – held an error of law because the … Continue reading Grimmer v KLM Cityhopper UK: EAT 17 Mar 2005
outasightEAT201411 EAT Practice and Procedure: Review – Reconsideration – Rule 70 Schedule 1 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 – fresh evidence – interests of justice Having lost his claim for wrongful dismissal/breach of contract before the Employment Tribunal, the Claimant applied for a reconsideration of that Judgment on the basis that … Continue reading Outasight VB Ltd v Brown: EAT 21 Nov 2014
Application was made to make extensive amendments to the notice of appeal. Held: The application was refused. The EAT practice guide required an application for an amendment to be made as soon as its necessity became apparent. The applicant had not done so. The EAT set down general guidance in dealing with such applications. No … Continue reading Khudados v Leggate and others: EAT 16 Feb 2005
The court considered a strike out application. Held: Although there might be many cases where the possibility or otherwise of a fair trial is highly important to the exercise of discretion under CPR 3.9. it does not follow that where a fair trial is still possible, relief will necessarily be granted: ‘CPR 3.9 deals generally … Continue reading Hansom and others v E Rex Makin and Wright: CA 18 Dec 2003
In a defamation action, where the judge considered that, taken at their highest, the allegations made by the claimant would be insufficient to establish the claim, he could grant summary judgment for the defence. If the judge considered that a finding by a jury that the words alleged were defamatory, would inevitably be set aside … Continue reading Alexander v Arts Council of Wales: CA 9 Apr 2001
The defendant had been convicted, under regulations made under the Act, of smoking in a railway carriage. He sought to challenge the validity of the regulations themselves. He wanted to argue that the power to ban smoking on carriages did not . .
Part-time workers claimed that they had been unlawfully excluded from occupational pension schemes because membership was dependent on an employee working a minimum number of hours per week and that that was discriminatory because a considerably . .
The claimant was a police informer. Over several years he had given and been paid for information. He claimed that on one occasion he had given information which had led to the arrest of a major criminal, but the police denied that any information . .
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Appellate jurisdiction /reasons/Burns-Barke
Perversity
The Employment Tribunal failed to include in its written reasons a number of matters including a concise statement . .
The claimant pursued Employment Tribunal proceedings against the Immigration Service when his security clearance was withdrawn. The Tribunal allowed the respondent to use a closed material procedure under which it was provided with evidence unseen . .
The various applicants sought judicial review of the operation of the Protection of Vulnerable Adults List insofar as they had been placed provisionally on the list, preventing them from finding work. One complaint was that the list had operated . .
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
Our law-index is a substantial selection from our database. Cases here are restricted in number by date and lack the additional facilities formerly available within lawindexpro. Please do enjoy this free version of the lawindex. Case law does not ‘belong’ to lawyers. Judgments are made up of words which can be read and understood (if … Continue reading law index
