EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Disclosure
HUMAN RIGHTS
(1) The procedure sanctioned by rule 54 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure, and by the Employment Tribunals (National Security) Rules of Procedure, is not incompatible with a claimant’s right under Art. 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights to a fair hearing of his claim for discrimination, or his right under European Community law to an effective judicial remedy for his discrimination. Whether the withholding of materials from a claimant will render the hearing unfair will depend on the facts of each particular case, but Art 6 requires the claimant to be provided with the allegations being made against him in sufficient detail to enable him to give instructions to his legal team so that those allegations can be challenged effectively.
(2) The Employment Tribunal did not err in concluding that it should decide whether it was permissible to hear closed evidence before hearing any of the open evidence: Coles v Barracks distinguished.
(3) In deciding whether to order further materials to be disclosed to the claimant to make the hearing of the claim Art. 6 compliant, the Employment Tribunal should first be informed what the parties’ open cases are, and then be informed in closed session what the respondent’s case is: Farooq v Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis distinguished.
Keith J
[2009] UKEAT 0168 – 09 – 1610, [2010] HRLR 5, [2010] ICR 223
Bailii
Race Relations Act 1976, Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, European Convention on Human Rights 6, Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 17
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Shergold v Fieldway Medical Centre EAT 5-Dec-2005
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 . .
Cited – Murungaru v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others CA 12-Sep-2008
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 . .
Cited – Farooq v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis EAT 20-Nov-2007
EAT Unfair Dismissal – national security
The Appellant’s claim for discrimination against the Respondent Police Force was made, by ET Order of 3 September 2005, subject to ET Rule 54, when Orders made for . .
Cited – Barracks v Coles and Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis CA 21-Jul-2006
The claimant sought to allege race discrimination and appealed refusal by the respondents to release required documents. She had been turned down for an appointment to the Trident task force, and sought disclosure of the reasons. The respondent said . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB; Same v AF HL 31-Oct-2007
Non-derogating control orders – HR Compliant
MB and AF challenged non-derogating control orders made under the 2005 Act, saying that they were incompatible with their human rights. AF was subject to a curfew of 14 hours a day, wore an electronic tag at all times, could not leave a nine square . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF AN and AE (No 3) HL 10-Jun-2009
The applicants complained that they had been made subject to non-derogating control orders as suspected terrorists, but that the failure to inform them of the allegations or evidence against them was unfair and infringed their human rights. The . .
Cited – A and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 19-Feb-2009
(Grand Chamber) The applicants had been subjected to severe restrictions. They were foreign nationals suspected of terrorist involvement, but could not be deported for fear of being tortured. The UK had derogated from the Convention to put the . .
Cited by:
Appeal From – Home Office v Tariq CA 4-May-2010
The claimant began proceedings against his employer, the Immigration Service after his security clearance was withdrawn. He complained that the respondent had been allowed by the Tribunal to present evidence he was not himself allowed to see and . .
At EAT – Home Office v Tariq SC 13-Jul-2011
(JUSTICE intervening) 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Human Rights
Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.376159