Barke v Seetec Business Technology Centre Ltd

Barke v Seetec Business Technology Centre Ltd

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has jurisdiction to invite the Employment Tribunal to clarify, supplement, or provide further written reasons for its decision after judgment and reasons have been entered on the register. This power is derived from Rule 30(3)(b) of the 2004 Regulations and the EAT's general power to regulate its own procedure. The functus officio doctrine does not preclude this, and the Burns procedure is a lawful exercise of case management discretion. The EAT's order in this case was a proper exercise of that jurisdiction.

Parties
Appellant: Mrs E Barke; Respondent: SEETEC Business Technology Centre Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Employment Tribunal Procedure, Adequacy of Reasons, Case Management, Functus Officio, Remittal of Cases
Employment Law Civil Procedure Employment Tribunal Procedure Adequacy of Reasons Case Management Functus Officio Remittal of Cases

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs E Barke

Appellant

SEETEC Business Technology Centre Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has jurisdiction to request clarification, supplementation, or further written reasons from the Employment Tribunal after judgment and reasons have been entered on the register (the 'Burns procedure').
  2. 2 Whether the EAT's order in this case was an appropriate exercise of that jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has jurisdiction to invite the Employment Tribunal to clarify, supplement, or provide further written reasons for its decision after judgment and reasons have been entered on the register. This power is derived from Rule 30(3)(b) of the 2004 Regulations and the EAT's general power to regulate its own procedure. The functus officio doctrine does not preclude this, and the Burns procedure is a lawful exercise of case management discretion. The EAT's order in this case was a proper exercise of that jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant to pay Respondent’s costs of the appeal, to be assessed if not agreed.
  • Appellant to pay £5,000 on account of costs by 27th June 2005.