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 of the applicable law, contrary to the requirements of Rule 30(6) of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004. Nevertheless it was apparent that the relevant law was uncontroversial and that the Employment Tribunal had it in mind when considering the facts and applying them to the law; in the circumstances the decision would be upheld; dicta of Buxton LJ in Balfour Beatty Power Network Ltd v Wilcox [2007] IRLR 63 paragraph 25 applied.
Serota QC J
[2009] UKEAT 0379 – 08 – 0712
Bailii
Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 30(6)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Balfour Beatty Power Networks Ltd and Another v Wilcox and others CA 20-Jul-2006
Rule 30(6) of the 2004 Rules, which requires sufficient reasons, is intended to be a guide and not a straitjacket so that if it can be reasonably spelled out from a determination that what the rule requires has been provided by the Tribunal, then no . .
Cited – Dr Anya v University of Oxford and Another CA 22-Mar-2001
Discrimination – History of interactions relevant
When a tribunal considered whether the motive for an act was discriminatory, it should look not just at the act, but should make allowance for earlier acts which might throw more light on the act in question. The Tribunal should assess the totality . .
Cited by:
Not Followed – Sivagnansundarum v Whipps Cross University Hospital NHS Trust EAT 28-Jun-2011
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke
Although this was a ‘narrative’ judgment sufficient substance could be extracted from the decision to demonstrate compliance with rule . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2021; Ref: scu.381854
