Vickerstaff v Edbro Plc: EAT 22 May 1996

The claimant having failed in his claim for unfair dismissal, wanted to claim against the tribunal and appeal tribunal alleging a conspiracy against him. The hearing had been heard in private to which he had objected. He wanted to go straight to the court of appeal.
Held: The capacity of the EAT was statutory only, and there was no mechanism of the kind requested by the claimant. The appellant must have appreciated that his appeal was bound to fail. It was therefore frivolous or vexatious, and costs were awarded againt him.
Butterfield J
[1996] UKEAT 1087 – 95 – 2205
The Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 1993
See AlsoVickerstaff v Edbro Plc EAT 23-Jun-1994
The claimant appealed against refusal of an order for discovery. He had wanted to disclose what he thought were illegal activities by the firm. He said that he had been dismissed for that reason and that disclosure was required for him to establish . .
See AlsoVickerstaff v Edbro Plc EAT 8-Mar-1995
The claimant had made separate complaints of unfair dismissal, and under the 1986 Act. He now appealed an order combining the two cases. The respondent alleged that there were common issues of law and fact.
Held: The decision was one for the . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromVickerstaff v Edbro Plc CA 28-Jan-1997
The appellant’s employment had terminated in circumstances where he had threatened to publicise matters about the defendant’s activities, but had failed to co-operate with the company in investigating his allegations by particularising them.
See AlsoEdbro Plc v Vickerstaff CA 22-May-1998
Order dismissing appeal where the appellant had failed to appear or notify the court of why he was not doing so. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 October 2021; Ref: scu.208424