EAT Practice and Procedure : Bias, Misconduct and Procedural Irregularity – Did the fact that the Employment Judge was a governor of a Surrey school at the time of the Employment Tribunal Hearing (and became Chairman of the governing body before the decision was promulgated), give rise to the appearance of bias when he sat on a case involving another Surrey school (the governing body of which was a party).
Applying Porter v Magill it was necessary to (1) ascertain all the circumstances having a bearing on the suggestion that the Judge was biased; and (2) ask whether those circumstances would lead a fair-minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility that the Judge was biased.
This was not a case involving any common policy or line (in contrast to Hamilton v GMB); the Employment Judge had no prior dealings with any of those involved in the case and was unaware of any connection between the Head Teachers of the two schools. Although both schools had access to the same training and advisory services (provided by Babcock 4S), that did not change the position. Ultimately, having ascertained and scrutinised all the circumstances material to the suggestion that the Employment Judge was biased, the fair-minded and informed observer would not conclude that there was any possibility of bias in this case.
Eady QC HHJ
[2015] UKEAT 0227 – 14 – 2702
Bailii
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.543902
