Krishna v. Argyll & Bute Council & Ors [2005] ScotCS CSIH_52 (24 June 2005)

Krishna v. Argyll & Bute Council & Ors [2005] ScotCS CSIH_52 (24 June 2005)

The EAT was entitled to refuse to entertain the appeals without a full hearing because the revised notices of appeal did not properly identify a question of law. The statutory framework, including section 21 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996, the 1993 Rules, and the Practice Direction, permits the EAT to sift out appeals that do not meet the threshold for a question of law. The facts relied upon by the appellant did not demonstrate perversity or any material error of law by the employment tribunal.

Citation
[2005] ScotCS CSIH_52
Parties
Appellant: Mrs. Indu Krishna; Respondents: Argyll & Bute Council and Others
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
24 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal to Court of Session
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Racial Discrimination, Employment Tribunal Procedure, Appeals Process, Judicial Review, Perversity as Error of Law
Employment Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Racial Discrimination Employment Tribunal Procedure Appeals Process Judicial Review Perversity as Error of Law

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs. Indu Krishna

Appellant

Argyll & Bute Council and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal to Court of Session

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) erred in refusing to entertain the appellant's appeals without a full hearing
  2. 2 Whether the notices of appeal properly identified a question of law, specifically perversity, sufficient to require a full appeal hearing before the EAT

Ratio Decidendi

The EAT was entitled to refuse to entertain the appeals without a full hearing because the revised notices of appeal did not properly identify a question of law. The statutory framework, including section 21 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996, the 1993 Rules, and the Practice Direction, permits the EAT to sift out appeals that do not meet the threshold for a question of law. The facts relied upon by the appellant did not demonstrate perversity or any material error of law by the employment tribunal.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal refused.