Menzies Distribution Ltd v Mendes (Practice and Procedure : Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity) [2014] UKEAT 0497_13_2003 (20 March 2014)

Menzies Distribution Ltd v Mendes (Practice and Procedure : Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity) [2014] UKEAT 0497_13_2003 (20 March 2014)

A fair-minded observer would consider there was a real possibility of bias where the Employment Judge, having already reached and announced a firm conclusion on the claimant's disability, re-heard and decided the same issue. The judge should have recused himself, and the decisions from both the original and re-hearing must be set aside and remitted to a differently constituted tribunal.

Citation
[2014] UKEAT 0497_13_2003
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Maria Mendes; Respondent/appellant: Menzies Distribution Ltd
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
20 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Deputy Registrar's Directions and Employment Tribunal Pre Hearing Review
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Bias and Recusal, Procedural Fairness, Disability Discrimination, Employment Tribunal Procedure, Amendment of Claims
Employment Law Discrimination Law Bias and Recusal Procedural Fairness Disability Discrimination Employment Tribunal Procedure Amendment of Claims

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maria Mendes

Claimant/respondent

Menzies Distribution Ltd

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Deputy Registrar's Directions and Employment Tribunal Pre Hearing Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Judge's conduct gave rise to an appearance of bias by re-hearing an issue previously decided
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Judge should have recused himself from the re-hearing
  3. 3 Whether procedural irregularities occurred in the handling of amendments and directions

Ratio Decidendi

A fair-minded observer would consider there was a real possibility of bias where the Employment Judge, having already reached and announced a firm conclusion on the claimant's disability, re-heard and decided the same issue. The judge should have recused himself, and the decisions from both the original and re-hearing must be set aside and remitted to a differently constituted tribunal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The judgments of 3 July 2013 and 27 September 2013, and the interlocutory order, are set aside.
  • The decision of 6 December 2012 is revoked.