All items: Tribunal and court procedure

• expand

  Adegbuji v Meteor Parking Ltd EAT/1570/09 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Tribunal procedure: "Fresh evidence" challenges to tribunal decisions should be dealt with by review not appeal

    Date:

    15 September 2010

    In Adegbuji v Meteor Parking Ltd EAT/1570/09, the EAT dismissed an appeal seeking to challenge a tribunal decision on the basis of fresh evidence because the claimant had failed to show that the evidence could not have been put before the tribunal at the time of the hearing. The EAT also remarked that, in general, the appropriate course for parties seeking to rely on new evidence is to apply to the tribunal for a review.

• expand

  Ahari v University of Glasgow and HCI (Scotland) Ltd EATS/0018/05 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Case round-up: Postponement of tribunal hearings

    Date:

    25 October 2005

    This week's case round-up from Eversheds, covering postponement of tribunal hearings on ill-health grounds.

• expand

  Ahuja v Ingrams (a firm) [2002] EWCA Civ 1292 CA (1 report relating to this case)

  • Case round-up: racial discrimination and reasonable adjustments

    Date:

    20 August 2002

    This week's case round-up from Eversheds, covering racial discrimination and reasonable adjustments.

• expand

  Andreou v Lord Chancellor's Department [2002] IRLR 728 CA (2 reports relating to this case)

  • Points of procedure: part 1

    Date:

    5 March 2004

    A review of recent significant cases on practice and procedure in the employment tribunals and the EAT.

  • On appeal: disability discrimination; tribunal adournments and confidentiality clauses

    Date:

    19 November 2002

    Continuing our series on the implications of recent significant cases, Gareth Brahams, a partner in the employment department at Lewis Silkin, looks at the issues surrounding some employment-related disputes. This week: disability discrimination; tribunal adournments; and confidentiality clauses.

• expand

  Andreou v Lord Chancellor's Department EAT/36/01, EAT/37/01 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Points of procedure

    Date:

    5 August 2002

    A round-up of recent noteworthy decisions on practice and procedure in the employment tribunals and the EAT.

• expand

  Ansar v Lloyds TSB Bank plc and others [2007] IRLR 211 CA (1 report relating to this case)

  • Points of procedure round-up

    Date:

    16 February 2007

    A review of recent significant cases on practice and procedure in the EAT and the Court of Appeal.

• expand

  Anyanwu and another v South Bank Students’ Union and South Bank University [2001] IRLR 305 HL (3 reports relating to this case)

  • Test established

    Date:

    1 June 2001

    In Anyanwu v South Bank Students' Union the House of Lords has ruled that in order to "aid" someone to do an unlawful act, it is not necessary for the aider to be a secondary, rather than a primary, actor.

  • Race discrimination: "Aids" should be given its plain and ordinary meaning

    Date:

    15 May 2001

    In Anyanwu and another v South Bank Student Union and another (Commission for Racial Equality intervening), the House of Lords holds that the word "aids" in s.33(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976 is a familiar word in everyday use that bears no technical or special meaning in this context.

  • Aiding unlawful acts

    Date:

    1 May 2001

    In Anyanwu v South Bank Students' Union and South Bank University (22 March 2001), the House of Lords rules that a person "aids" another to commit an unlawful act if he helps, assists, cooperates or collaborates with him. To be someone who "aids", it is not necessary that the person is a secondary, rather than a primary, actor.

• expand

  Attorney General v Wheen [2001] IRLR 91 CA (1 report relating to this case)

  • Tribunal procedure: Proper approach to restriction of vexatious proceedings

    Date:

    15 April 2001

    In Attorney General v Wheen, the Court of Appeal upholds the EAT's decision to make an order restricting vexatious proceedings under s.33 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. In this case, which concerns the first such order made under that provision, the Court says that the EAT rightly concluded that the requisite precondition that the relevant individual had "habitually and persistently and without any reasonable ground instituted vexatious proceedings" had been met.

• expand

  Balamoody v United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting [2002] IRLR 288 CA (2 reports relating to this case)

  • Race discrimination: When to construct hypothetical comparator

    Date:

    15 June 2002

    In Balamoody v United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting the Court of Appeal holds that an employment tribunal should have constructed a hypothetical comparator against which to consider whether there was evidence to support an inference that the complainant's treatment had been tainted with race discrimination. And the EAT holds in Williams v H M Prison Service that there is no additional duty on a tribunal to construct and consider the position of a hypothetical comparator.

  • Hypothetical comparator required

    Date:

    1 April 2002

    In Balamoody v United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health (6 December 2001), the Court of Appeal rules that where there is no actual comparator for a discrimination complainant to compare their treatment with, the tribunal must construct a hypothetical comparator.

• expand

  Barracks v Coles and another [2007] IRLR 73 CA (1 report relating to this case)

  • Barracks v Coles and another

    Date:

    31 July 2006

    In Barracks v Coles and another [2007] IRLR 73 CA, the Court of Appeal has given guidance on the correct approach for employment tribunals to take when an employer refuses to disclose information in relation to security vetting that is relevant to an employee's discrimination claim.