Practice and Procedure - Admissibility of evidence The claimant sought disclosure of certain legal advice on the basis that its effect, and a summary of its contents, had been put before the court and therefore privilege was waived. The Tribunal rejected the application and the EAT held that they were right to do so. Consideration of the operation of waiver principles.
|
Race Discrimination - Direct Direct race discrimination. Consideration of case at stage 1 of Igen. Reasons for upholding employer’s explanation at stage 2.
|
Practice and Procedure - Service This is an appeal from the judgment of 21 January 2008 of Employment Judge Davey, who decided that the amended claim form, which now named Bennington Training Services as Respondent, was out of time and that it was reasonably practicable for Mr Ryan to have brought the claim within time. Appeal allowed and EAT's judgement substituted for that of the ET. Case remitted back to ET for full hearing.
|
Practice and Procedure - Costs Failure to consider application of Polkey principle to compensating award for unfair dismissal. Inadequate reasoning to explain full costs order. Case remitted to same tribunal to consider Polkey and costs.
|
Jurisdictional Points - Extension of time: just and equitable Just and equitable extension of time. Employment Tribunal failing to take into account relevant factors. Appeal allowed; decision reversed; time extended and case remitted for hearing on merits.
|
Unfair Dismissal - Polkey deduction The Tribunal wrong to reject Polkey in view of genuineness of redundancy and that respondents would have been in the pool. Tribunal ordered to reconsider their decision on Polkey in accordance with the guidance set out in Software 2000 Limited v Andrews.
|
Practice and Procedure - Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity Whether ET gave appearance of bias – fair-minded observer test – on the evidence and material before the EAT that case was not made out. Appeal dismissed.
|
Practice and Procedure - Review With regards to the Review Appeal, the Tribunal applied the wrong legal tests and/or erred in law and/or was perverse in dismissing the Appellant’s application for Review by reference to fresh evidence and/or the interests of justice. Application for Review granted and Review of the First and Second Cases remitted to a different Tribunal. With regards to the Fourth Case Appeal, the Tribunal had no evidential basis and/or gave no adequate reasons for its ...
|
Practice and Procedure - Striking-out/dismissal The Appellant appealed a strike out order, but the correct authority (Blockbuster) was applied and there was (i) no perversity in the ET’s findings of fact, nor any other challengeable basis in law (ii) no vitiated discretion in refusing an adjournment in the light of those findings.
|
Unfair Dismissal - Reasonableness of dismissal The Tribunal failed to make findings regarding whether the employers had adopted a reasonable marking system for redundancy selection. ET's ruling set aside and matter remitted back to the same Tribunal to consider again.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |