Hooper v Sherborne School
The application was refused because the Employment Tribunal's findings of fact were supported by evidence, no error of law was identified, the new argument based on suspicion was not raised below and could not be introduced on appeal, and there was no substantiated procedural irregularity or bias.
- Parties
- Applicant: Mrs C Hooper; Respondent: Sherborne School
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 27 October 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal to Court of Appeal
- Outcome
- permission to appeal refused; extension of time refused
- Legal Topics
- Victimisation, Race Discrimination, Costs in Employment Tribunal, Procedural Fairness, Appeals Process
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mrs C Hooper
Applicant
Sherborne School
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal to Court of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in dismissing the victimisation claim under the Race Relations Act 1976
- 2 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in awarding costs against the applicant
- 3 Whether the Employment Tribunal or Employment Appeal Tribunal committed procedural irregularity or bias
Ratio Decidendi
The application was refused because the Employment Tribunal's findings of fact were supported by evidence, no error of law was identified, the new argument based on suspicion was not raised below and could not be introduced on appeal, and there was no substantiated procedural irregularity or bias.
Court Disposition
permission to appeal refused; extension of time refused
Orders
- Application for permission to appeal refused
- Application for extension of time refused
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment