UCATT v Brain: CA 1981

Donaldson LJ said: ‘Industrial tribunals’ reasons are not intended to include a comprehensive and detailed analysis of the case, either in terms of fact or in law . . their purpose remains what it has always been, which is to tell the parties in broad terms why they lose or, as the case may be, win. I think it would be a thousand pities if these reasons began to be subjected to a detailed analysis and appeals were to be brought based upon any such analysis.
This, to my mind, is to misuse the purpose for which the reasons are given.’


Donaldson LJ


[1981] IRLR 225


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedS Hackett v Vaw Motorcast Ltd EAT 22-Jan-2001
The appellants appealed a decision awarding costs against them following a failed application. An order had been made under the rules requiring them to deposit costs against the expectation of the tribunal that their claim would fail. The eventual . .
CitedDPP Law Ltd v Greenberg CA 7-May-2021
Respect for ET judgment where prriciples set out
The respondent solicitor, had unlawfully accepted a payment of cash from the father of a criminal Legal Aid client. The firm now appealed from a finding that he had been unlawfully dismissed for gross misconduct.
Held: The appeal succeeded: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.181339