Bari v ASPEN Window Group [2001] EWCA Civ 1622 (29 October 2001)

It is arguable that the Employment Appeal Tribunal exercised its discretion improperly in refusing to admit fresh evidence that could materially affect the outcome regarding indirect discrimination.

Citation: [2001] EWCA Civ 1622
Parties: Appellant/applicant: Arman Bari; Respondent/respondent: Aspen Window Group
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 29 October 2001
Procedural Posture: Employment Appeal / Permission to Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal
Outcome: Permission to appeal granted on the ground of refusal to admit fresh evidence; refused on all other grounds.
Legal Topics: Unfair Dismissal, Indirect Discrimination, Admission of Fresh Evidence

Employment Law Unfair Dismissal Indirect Discrimination Admission of Fresh Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Arman Bari

Appellant/applicant

Aspen Window Group

Respondent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Permission to Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal

Legal Issues

1 Whether section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is indirectly discriminatory against women
2 Whether the Employment Appeal Tribunal erred in refusing to admit fresh evidence

Ratio Decidendi

It is arguable that the Employment Appeal Tribunal exercised its discretion improperly in refusing to admit fresh evidence that could materially affect the outcome regarding indirect discrimination.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal granted on the ground of refusal to admit fresh evidence; refused on all other grounds.

Orders

Permission to appeal limited to the ground challenging refusal to admit fresh evidence.
To be heard by two Lords Justices and placed in the short warned list.