EAT Deposit ordered. Order lost in post due to the Claimant putting wrong post-code on ET1. Review. Distinguishing Judgments from Orders. Strike-out. Extending time.
Judges:
His Honour Peter Clark
Citations:
[2005] UKEAT 0318 – 05 – 2907, UKEAT/0319/05/TM, UKEAT/0318/05/TM, [2005] ICR 1647, UKEAT/0320/05/TM, [2005] IRLR 836
Links:
Statutes:
Employment Tribunal Rules 2004 20(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Kuttapan v London Borough of Croydon and others EAT 17-Dec-1998
. .
Cited – Maurice v Betterware UK Ltd EAT 3-Jul-2000
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal . .
Cited – Immigration Advisory Services v Oommen EAT 19-Mar-1997
The claimant had been ordered to pay a deposit as a condition of being allowed to proceed with the claim which the tribunal had judged to have no reasonable prospect of success. The claim was struck out after the tribunal had been wrongly told that . .
Cited – Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council v Ladejobi EAT 2-Sep-1999
The time limits for lodging appeals against Employment tribunal rulings are strict. The date of promulgation is the operative date from which the date sent is to be calculated. The rules set aside the normal rules on interpretation as to when a . .
Cited – London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham v Ladejobi EAT 1-Nov-1998
The tribunal was asked as to the date from which time started to run for the purposes of calculating the 42-day period within which an appeal should have been brought from a decision of an Employment Tribunal, if it was to be brought at all.
Cited – Mock v Inland Revenue EAT 1-Mar-1999
In the context of the time for appealing to the EAT under Rule 3(3) EAT Rules 1993, as amended, ‘sent’ referred to the date appearing on the ET ‘decision’.
Morison P said: ‘Industrial Tribunal chairmen are required to produce reasons. When . .
Cited – Casella London Ltd v Banai 1990
A strike out order was not a decision capable of review. . .
Cited – Barber v Staffordshire County Council CA 29-Jan-1996
A dismissal of a claim without consideration by the tribunal created an issue estoppel. Issue estoppel rules apply equally to Industrial Tribunal decisions as elsewhere. Redundancy claim once withdrawn on one ground could not be revived on another. . .
Cited – Gdynia American Shipping Lines (London) Ltd v Chelminski CA 8-Jul-2004
The employers had sought to appeal from a decision of the employment tribunal. The EAT had refused it as out of time.
Held: The rules required the appellant to file within 42 days of receiving the decision, the notice of appeal together with a . .
Cited – Dattani v Trio Supermarkets Limited CA 20-Feb-1998
No bar exists to claiming for unpaid wages after an industrial tribunal settlement did not state what matters had been resolved between the parties. The withdrawal of a claim did not give rise to an estoppel. . .
Cited – Flint v Eastern Electricity Board EAT 1975
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 . .
Cited – Kumchyk v Derby County Council EAT 1978
The appellant sought to advance an argument that a certain term was implied into the contract of employment which, for its consideration, would have required consideration of a factual framework which had not been explored in evidence.
Held: . .
Cited – Lindsay v Ironsides Ray and Vials EAT 27-Jan-1994
The industrial tribunal had refused the applicant an extension of time.
Held: The Tribunal mistook the law in holding that it could grant a review of its decision because the employee’s case had not been properly argued at the preliminary . .
Cited – Glennie v Independent Magazines (UK) Limited CA 17-Jun-1999
A party is under a duty to present his entire case at the first hearing in the Employment Tribunal. Where a claimant’s representative had decided to adopt a particular position in law when making representations to the original industrial tribunal, . .
Recommended – Williams v Ferrosan Ltd EAT 5-Mar-2004
Acting on guidance, the parties representatives and the tribunal had assumed that part of the award relating to loss of future earnings would not be taxable. The question now was whether the tribunal had power of its own motion to review its . .
Cited – Nikitas v Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council EAT 1986
An interlocutory order once made may be revisited by the Employment Tribunal. Waterhouse J said: ‘It is abundantly clear, therefore, that interlocutory orders do not constitute a decision within the meaning of the Industrial Tribunal (Rules of . .
Cited – Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore EAT 2-May-1996
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 . .
Cited – Glennie v Independent Magazines (UK) Limited CA 17-Jun-1999
A party is under a duty to present his entire case at the first hearing in the Employment Tribunal. Where a claimant’s representative had decided to adopt a particular position in law when making representations to the original industrial tribunal, . .
Cited by:
Cited – Uyanwa-Odu and Another v Schools Offices Services Ltd EAT 5-Oct-2005
EAT Practice and Procedure – Striking-out/dismissal.
EAT Practice and Procedure,br />Rule 13(2) unless order – ET rule that claim is struck out for non-compliance and . .
Cited – Hart v English Heritage (Historic Buildings and Monuments Commision for England) EAT 7-Feb-2006
EAT Leave to amend claim to include certain unfair dismissal complaints rejected by Tribunal Chairman. Attempt made before another Chairman to contend that the amendment should be permitted because it merely gave . .
Cited – Butlins Skyline Ltd, M Smith v Beynon EAT 20-Feb-2006
EAT Practice and Procedure – Appearance/Response. . .
Cited – Fay v an Tearmann Project Ltd and Another NIIT 5-May-2006
. .
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. . .
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 – Russell v CIA Excel NIIT 24-Jan-2007
. .
Cited – Secretary of State for Health v Rance EAT 4-May-2007
EAT Equal Pay Act – Part time pensions
Practice and Procedure – Appellate jurisdiction/Reasons/Burns-Barke
The EAT exercised its discretion to allow a point conceded at the Employment Tribunal to be . .
Cited – Van Rensburg v The Royal Borough of Kingston-Upon-Thames and others EAT 16-Oct-2007
EAT Practice and Procedure: Striking-out/dismissal – Imposition of Deposit
The Employment Tribunal made a deposit order under rule 20 of the Tribunal Rules of Procedure against the Appellant on the grounds . .
Cited – Grant v Department of Finance and Person… FENI 13-Nov-2007
FENI The decision of the Tribunal is that the alleged episodes of religious discrimination prior to 26th April 2004 do not constitute an extended act for the purposes of Article 46(6)(b) of the Fair Employment . .
Cited – Jarretts Motors Ltd v Wells EAT 22-Apr-2008
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Striking-out/dismissal
Respondent failed to present response in time and was accordingly debarred under rule 9 – Judgment given following Hearing at which Respondent not . .
Cited – O’Hare v Queen’s University Belfast FENI 9-May-2008
. .
Cited – Council of The City of Newcastle Upon Tyne v Marsden (Rev 1) EAT 23-Jan-2010
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Review
Claim under Disability Discrimination Act 1995 dismissed at PHR because Claimant not available to give evidence as to long-term effect of injury – Judge willing to offer . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 23 October 2022; Ref: scu.257571