James v Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 1158 (23 October 2008)

James v Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 1158 (23 October 2008)

The appellant failed to comply with the statutory grievance procedures for the majority of his claims, and the Employment Tribunal's refusal to allow amendments or to accept certain documents as grievances was not an error of law or perverse. There was no evidence of bias or procedural unfairness. No arguable point of law arose to justify granting permission to appeal.

Citation
[2008] EWCA Civ 1158
Parties
Appellant: Anthony James; Respondent: Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal (employment) / Application for Permission to Appeal (court of Appeal, Civil Division)
Outcome
Applications for permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Race Discrimination, Employment Grievance Procedures, Amendment of Pleadings, Procedural Fairness, Appeals Process
Employment Law Discrimination Law Race Discrimination Employment Grievance Procedures Amendment of Pleadings Procedural Fairness Appeals Process

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony James

Appellant

Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (employment) / Application for Permission to Appeal (court of Appeal, Civil Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal erred in law in dismissing the majority of the appellant's race discrimination claims for failure to comply with statutory grievance procedures and for lack of particularisation.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was denied a fair hearing or subjected to bias or procedural unfairness.
  3. 3 Whether the refusal to allow amendments to the claims was a perverse exercise of discretion.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to comply with the statutory grievance procedures for the majority of his claims, and the Employment Tribunal's refusal to allow amendments or to accept certain documents as grievances was not an error of law or perverse. There was no evidence of bias or procedural unfairness. No arguable point of law arose to justify granting permission to appeal.

Court Disposition

Applications for permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal against the order of Underhill J refused.
  • Permission to appeal against the order of Elias J refused.