Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The EAT dismissed an appeal where the claimant tried to run a new argument not advanced in the Employment Tribunal and showed no exceptional reason to do so.
On a proper analysis of all relevant correspondence and circumstances, including the claimant's recent bereavement and concern about costs, the only decision that could have been reached was that there was not an unequivocal withdrawal. Therefore, the claim did not automatically come to an end and there could be no judgment on withdrawal. The dismissal judgment was made in error of law.
Source excerpt
The EAT dismissed Mr Amin’s appeal, upholding strike-out for non-payment of deposit orders and rejecting challenges to refusal of relief, postponement, and alleged bias.
The EAT held that the tribunal wrongly refused Car Sales Solutions’ reconsideration application and remitted it to a different Employment Judge.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed an appeal challenging the tribunal’s credibility assessment, holding there was no inflexible rule or error of law.
The Employment Tribunal erred by issuing a Rule 21 judgment without seeking clarification of the scope of the claim, given express indications of potential further claims and supporting documents. The judge should have paused to request further information or clarification before disposing of the claim. This fell outside the reasonable exercise of discretion.
Source excerpt
The claimant was not given a proper opportunity to be heard on the respondent's application for extension of time to file ET3; the appeal is allowed and the matter remitted to the Employment Tribunal for reconsideration with the claimant given a proper opportunity to be heard. The claimant's requests for default judgment, time off work, and costs are misconceived and refused. Costs are awarded against the claimant for unreasonable conduct.
Source excerpt
The EAT dismissed an appeal against refusal to vary or set aside a permanent restricted reporting and anonymisation order, finding no material change in circumstances.
The Tribunal erred in law by refusing to provide written reasons, refusing reconsideration, and not considering the Respondent's submissions on remedy; the basis for calculation of redundancy and holiday pay was unclear and disputed, requiring remittal for proper determination.
Source excerpt
Permanent anonymity is granted to the Appellant in both ET and EAT proceedings because a police report alleging a sexual offence triggers mandatory anonymity under section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, and the only way to prevent jigsaw identification is to anonymise the Appellant throughout.
Source excerpt
Explore more
