Tuckett v Ovum Ltd
There was no error of law in the Employment Tribunal's decision; it correctly directed itself on the law and made factual findings that the dismissal was not related to Mr Tuckett's disability. The delay in appealing was not justified by exceptional circumstances, and even if in time, the appeal had no real prospect...
Source-derived case information.
- Parties
- Applicant/appellant: Roger Tuckett; Respondent: Ovum Limited
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 08 August 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and Extension of Time
- Outcome
- application refused
- Legal Topics
- Unfair Dismissal, Disability Discrimination, Extension of Time, Admission of Additional Evidence
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Roger Tuckett
Applicant/appellant
Ovum Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and Extension of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law in dismissing the claim for disability discrimination
- 2 Whether there are grounds to admit additional evidence post-Tribunal decision
- 3 Whether an extension of time for appeal should be granted
Ratio Decidendi
There was no error of law in the Employment Tribunal's decision; it correctly directed itself on the law and made factual findings that the dismissal was not related to Mr Tuckett's disability. The delay in appealing was not justified by exceptional circumstances, and even if in time, the appeal had no real prospect of success.
Court Disposition
application refused
Orders
- Applications for permission to appeal and extension of time refused
- A copy of the judgment to be provided to the applicant at public expense
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