Aziz v FDA (Formerly First Division Association) & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 857 (14 June 2012)

Aziz v FDA (Formerly First Division Association) & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 857 (14 June 2012)

There was no arguable case of bias or improper conduct by the Tribunal; the refusal to transfer the case and to order specific disclosure were proper exercises of discretion; and the letter from the respondents' solicitors did not amount to victimisation or harassment.

Citation
[2012] EWCA Civ 857
Parties
Applicant: Aziz; Respondent: FDA (Formerly First Division Association); Respondent: Russell Jones & Walker
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal / Renewed Oral Application for Permission to Appeal Before Court of Appeal
Outcome
Applications refused
Legal Topics
Race Discrimination, Victimisation, Case Management Discretion, Disclosure of Documents, Perception of Bias, Harassment
Employment Law Discrimination Law Race Discrimination Victimisation Case Management Discretion Disclosure of Documents Perception of Bias Harassment

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aziz

Applicant

FDA (Formerly First Division Association)

Respondent

Russell Jones & Walker

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal / Renewed Oral Application for Permission to Appeal Before Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in refusing to transfer the case due to alleged bias
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal erred in refusing specific disclosure of telephone records
  3. 3 Whether a letter sent by the respondent's solicitors constituted victimisation or harassment

Ratio Decidendi

There was no arguable case of bias or improper conduct by the Tribunal; the refusal to transfer the case and to order specific disclosure were proper exercises of discretion; and the letter from the respondents' solicitors did not amount to victimisation or harassment.

Court Disposition

Applications refused

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused
  • No further orders made