A bald statement saying that X’s evidence was preferred to Y’s is implausible and unreasoned and unacceptable; included simply to try and prevent any appeal. It is likely that there will be a great deal of background material which is non-controversial. There is no need to recite at length in the decision the evidence which has been received. What a tribunal should do is state their findings of fact in a sensible order (often chronological), indicating in relation to any significant finding the nature of the conflicting evidence and the reason why one version has been preferred to another. Many people from ethnic minorities distrust the judicial system, and employment Tribunals should be careful to give no grounds for the belief that the case has not been approached even-handedly. Care should be taken to refrain from comment which might be taken by a litigant as a confirmation of his or her worse fears. It is always unacceptable for a tribunal to assert its conclusion in a decision without giving reasons.’
Judges:
Morison J
Citations:
Unreported, 06 March 1998, EAT/1378/96
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Tchoula v Netto Foodstores Ltd EAT 14-Jul-1997
The appicant sought leave to appeal against refusal of his claim of race discrimination.
Held: Leave was granted on one point. The Industrial Tribunal under the heading ‘Dismissal’, referred to the fact that: ‘The applicant lacked the ability . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Tchoula v Netto Foodstores (UK) Limited CA 15-Oct-1998
The complainant alleged bias on the part of the tribunal, saying that a tribunal member had fallen asleep. He now sought leave to appeal against the decision of the EAT. The Employment Appeal Tribunal had indicated certain areas of dissatisfaction . .
Cited – Deman v Victoria University of Manchester EAT 28-Sep-1998
The claimant asserted the appearance of prejudice in the tribunal which had heard his claim.
Held: The claim was unfounded. Courts should acknowledge that there was always a risk of causing suspicion if untoward remarks were made, and a court . .
Cited – Hamilton v Tandberg Televison Ltd EAT 12-Dec-2002
The applicant claimed unfair constructive dismissal.
Held: The appeal failed. McMullen QC J said: ‘It is suggested that the Employment Tribunal erred in law in failing to condemn the investigation. The standard against which investigation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 20 August 2022; Ref: scu.183408
