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 discretion of the chairman and the EAT should only interfere if the decision was perverse. It was not. The claimant’s objection was that he wanted two judgements, and that would happen.
Mummery J P
[1995] UKEAT 1086 – 94 – 0803
Bailii
Wages Act 1986, Industrial Tribunals 1993 818
Citing:
See Also – Vickerstaff 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 . .
Cited by:
See Also – 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 . .
See Also – Vickerstaff 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 Also – Edbro 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.209036
