James v Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd

James v Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd

The applications for permission to appeal were refused because the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal made no errors of law in their approach to the statutory grievance procedure, the exclusion of claims, or the assessment of evidence. The appellant's arguments were found to be unarguable, and no fair hearing or bias issues arose on the facts. The findings of fact were open to the Tribunal and not perverse.

Parties
Appellant: Anthony James; Respondent: Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (renewed Oral Applications)
Outcome
Applications for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Race Discrimination, Employment Tribunal Procedure, Grievance Procedures, Amendment of Pleadings, Fair Hearing
Employment Law Discrimination Law Race Discrimination Employment Tribunal Procedure Grievance Procedures Amendment of Pleadings Fair Hearing

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony James

Appellant

Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (renewed Oral Applications)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal erred in law in excluding the majority of the appellant's race discrimination claims for failure to comply with statutory grievance procedures and for case management reasons
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was denied a fair hearing
  3. 3 Whether the findings of fact by the Employment Tribunal were perverse or amounted to an error of law

Ratio Decidendi

The applications for permission to appeal were refused because the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal made no errors of law in their approach to the statutory grievance procedure, the exclusion of claims, or the assessment of evidence. The appellant's arguments were found to be unarguable, and no fair hearing or bias issues arose on the facts. The findings of fact were open to the Tribunal and not perverse.

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