Chelmsford Unisex Hair Salon Ltd v Grunwell [2019] UKEAT 0135_19_2910 (29 October 2019)

Chelmsford Unisex Hair Salon Ltd v Grunwell [2019] UKEAT 0135_19_2910 (29 October 2019)

The Employment Tribunal did not err in law by proceeding to determine remedy in the Respondent's absence after proper notice was given and no application for reconsideration or written reasons was made. The facts distinguish this case from Office Equipment Systems Ltd v Hughes, as there was an oral hearing and the Respondent was not excluded from participation by the Tribunal.

Citation
[2019] UKEAT 0135_19_2910
Parties
Appellant/respondent: Chelmsford Unisex Hair Salon Limited; Respondent/claimant: Miss Kaomi Grunwell
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
29 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal (eat) Appeal / Appeal Against Employment Tribunal Remedy Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Pregnancy Discrimination, Unfair Dismissal, Default Judgment, Remedy Hearing, Procedural Fairness
Employment Law Pregnancy Discrimination Unfair Dismissal Default Judgment Remedy Hearing Procedural Fairness

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chelmsford Unisex Hair Salon Limited

Appellant/respondent

Miss Kaomi Grunwell

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal (eat) Appeal / Appeal Against Employment Tribunal Remedy Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law by proceeding to determine remedy in the absence of the Respondent after default judgment on liability
  2. 2 Whether the Respondent was denied a fair opportunity to participate in the remedy hearing

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal did not err in law by proceeding to determine remedy in the Respondent's absence after proper notice was given and no application for reconsideration or written reasons was made. The facts distinguish this case from Office Equipment Systems Ltd v Hughes, as there was an oral hearing and the Respondent was not excluded from participation by the Tribunal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; Employment Tribunal's remedy judgment stands