Acting on guidance, the parties representatives and the tribunal had assumed that part of the award relating to loss of future earnings would not be taxable. The question now was whether the tribunal had power of its own motion to review its decision.
Held: ‘There is a difference between saying that a case to which rule 13(1)(e) applies will in practice be unusual or exceptional and saying that rule 13(1)(e) should be read as if inserted into it are the words ‘exceptional circumstances’. We see no reason now in the light of rule 10 that some sort of: ‘exceptionality hurdle’ should be read into rule 13(1)(e). One of the many advantages of the Civil Procedure Rules has been that a rule which, prior to the introduction of the CPR, had become ‘encrusted’ by numerous cases can be looked at afresh.’
UKEAT/1005/03,  UKEAT 1005 – 03 – 0503,  IRLR 607
Cited – British Midland Airways Limited v Lewis EAT 1978
An airline pilot complained that he had been unfairly dismissed and the Industrial Tribunal, without considering whether or not they had jurisdiction to hear the complaint on the ground that the employee might ordinarily work abroad, found that the . .
Cited – Trimble v Supertravel Ltd EAT 1982
The Industrial Tribunal had held that the appellant’s dismissal was unfair but then decided that she had failed to mitigate her loss. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Tribunal announced its decision and stated that she was to get no . .
Cited – Harber v North London Polytechnic EAT 29-Jun-1993
Cited – Dhedhi v United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust EAT 22-Jan-2002
The Employment Tribunal had decided that a Polkey discount was to be made. At a subsequent remedies and review hearing, the Tribunal allowed the appellant to re-open that issue and having heard evidence, the Tribunal altered the percentage Polkey . .
Cited – D G Moncrieff (Farmers) v MacDonald EAT 1978
The ability of a tribunal to revisit its own judgments, the review procedure, was only appropriate for use in exceptional circumstances. . .
Recommended – Sodexho Ltd v Gibbons EAT 14-Jul-2005
EAT Deposit ordered. Order lost in post due to the Claimant putting wrong post-code on ET1. Review. Distinguishing Judgments from Orders. Strike-out. Extending time. . .
Cited – Barke v Seetec Business Technology Centre Ltd CA 16-May-2005
Challenge to the lawfulness of the practice of the EAT in referring back to the IT deficient reasons with an invitation to expand upon them.
Held: The words ‘disposing of’ in the section meant ‘dealing with conclusively’ rather than . .
Cited – Tamborrino v Kuypers EAT 13-Oct-2005
EAT Practice and Procedure: Review -and- Withdrawal
Claim treated as withdrawn under Employment Tribunal Rules 25(3). Misapplication of law on facts. Review application similarly dismissed. Review judgment . .
Cited – Slaney v Culina Logistick Gmbh T/A Cullina Logistics EAT 21-Oct-2005
EAT Disability Discrimination: Disability -and- Practice and Procedure: Review
New point allowed on appeal – deemed past disability under the Disability Discrimination Act, Schedule 1, para 7. Original . .
Cited – Council of The City of Newcastle Upon Tyne v Marsden (Rev 1) EAT 23-Jan-2010
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Review
Claim under Disability Discrimination Act 1995 dismissed at PHR because Claimant not available to give evidence as to long-term effect of injury – Judge willing to offer . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.347334