Deman v Association of University Teachers & Officers at Queen's University (AUT) [2009] NICA 29 (6 May 2009)

Deman v Association of University Teachers & Officers at Queen's University (AUT) [2009] NICA 29 (6 May 2009)

The Tribunal did not err in refusing to recuse itself as no real possibility of bias was established; the respondents entered a valid appearance; procedural rulings were within the Tribunal's discretion; the majority of the appellant's allegations were out of time with no continuing act; and there was insufficient evidence of discrimination or victimisation after 19 January 1996.

Citation
[2009] NICA 29
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Suresh Deman; Respondents/respondents: Association of University Teachers and Officers at Queen's University (AUT), Duncan Mercer, Richard Jay, Max Goldstrom and Paul Hudson
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
06 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal by Way of Case Stated From the Fair Employment Tribunal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sex Discrimination, Religious Discrimination, Political Opinion Discrimination, Victimisation, Procedural Fairness, Recusal, Limitation Periods
Employment Law Discrimination Law Sex Discrimination Religious Discrimination Political Opinion Discrimination Victimisation Procedural Fairness Recusal +1 more

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Suresh Deman

Claimant/applicant

Association of University Teachers and Officers at Queen's University (AUT), Duncan Mercer, Richard Jay, Max Goldstrom and Paul Hudson

Respondents/respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal by Way of Case Stated From the Fair Employment Tribunal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal erred in refusing to recuse itself for bias
  2. 2 Whether the respondents entered a valid appearance
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal made improper procedural rulings

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not err in refusing to recuse itself as no real possibility of bias was established; the respondents entered a valid appearance; procedural rulings were within the Tribunal's discretion; the majority of the appellant's allegations were out of time with no continuing act; and there was insufficient evidence of discrimination or victimisation after 19 January 1996.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed