Afolayan v MRCS Ltd & Anor

Afolayan v MRCS Ltd & Anor

It is arguable that the judge erred by failing to consider whether the employer's conduct in the original disciplinary and tribunal proceedings was improper or in bad faith, which could justify a costs order under rule 34(1)(a).

Parties
Appellant: Afolayan; Respondent: MRCS Ltd & Anr
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
permission to appeal granted on a limited basis
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Costs, Procedural Fairness, Disciplinary Proceedings
Employment Law Unfair Dismissal Costs Procedural Fairness Disciplinary Proceedings

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Afolayan

Appellant

MRCS Ltd & Anr

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's conduct in bringing and defending disciplinary and tribunal proceedings was improper, unnecessary, vexatious, misconceived, or unreasonable under rule 34(1)(a) of the EAT rules
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Tribunal and EAT erred in their approach to costs and findings of fact regarding the employer's conduct

Ratio Decidendi

It is arguable that the judge erred by failing to consider whether the employer's conduct in the original disciplinary and tribunal proceedings was improper or in bad faith, which could justify a costs order under rule 34(1)(a).

Court Disposition

permission to appeal granted on a limited basis

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted only on the ground relating to the employer's alleged improper conduct in bringing and defending proceedings.
  • Time for amendment of grounds extended to 16 January 2009.