Riniker v University College London (Practice Note): CA 5 Apr 2001

The Employment Appeal Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal which does not set out to disturb any part of the order made by the original tribunal. There is no inherent power in the Court of Appeal to bypass the prohibition in subsection of the 1999 Act against hearing an appeal from a refusal of permission.

Citations:

[2001] 1 WLR 13

Statutes:

Access to Justice Act 1999 54(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See alsoRiniker v University College London EAT 5-Feb-1997
. .
See alsoRiniker v University College London EAT 12-Dec-1995
. .
See alsoRegina v Lord Chancellor and others ex parte Riniker CA 28-Feb-1997
The applicant sought judicial review of a refusal of her request that a judgment of the Court of Appeal should not be published.
Held: The applicants complaints were not well founded. ‘Her attempt to restrain publication of the Court of Appeal . .
Appeal fromRiniker v University College London EAT 23-Aug-1999
EAT Contract of Employment – Breach of Contract
EAT Contract of Employment – Breach of Contract. . .
See alsoRiniker v University College London CA 25-Nov-1998
. .

Cited by:

CitedJolly v Jay and Another CA 7-Mar-2002
The applicant sought to appeal a refusal to grant him permission to renew an oral application for leave to appeal. The respondent had appeared at the initial unsuccessful application, and had been awarded costs although there appeared to be no . .
CitedThe Law Society v Kamlesh Bahl EAT 7-Jul-2003
EAT Sex Discrimination – Direct
The complainant had been suspended from her position as Vice President of the Law Society. The Society and its officers appealed findings of sex and race discrimination . .
CitedBaker v Rowe CA 6-Nov-2009
H and W, though very elderly, set out for a divorce. A former son-in-law now appealed against a costs order made against him as an intervener under the 1996 Act. The parties disputed his right to appeal without permission.
Held: Under the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.201000