Freedom Choice Care Ltd v Buchanan (Practice and Procedure : Case Management) [2012] UKEAT 0388_11_0105 (01 May 2012)

Freedom Choice Care Ltd v Buchanan (Practice and Procedure : Case Management) [2012] UKEAT 0388_11_0105 (01 May 2012)

The appeal was adjourned because there was insufficient evidence as to whether the Regional Employment Judge was involved in the appointment of Mrs Mapstone, as required by Regulation 9(4). The Appellant failed to make proper enquiries. The validity of the remedies hearing depends on compliance with the regulation. Costs for the adjournment were provisionally awarded against the Appellant, subject to further argument on the EAT's power to award costs to a CAB-represented party.

Citation
[2012] UKEAT 0388_11_0105
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Ms R Buchanan; Respondent/appellant: Freedom Choice Care Limited
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
01 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal / Interlocutory Appeal on Procedural Irregularity (panel Composition) and Adjournment
Outcome
Appeal adjourned for further enquiry; provisional costs order varied for further argument.
Legal Topics
Sex Discrimination, Tribunal Panel Composition, Procedural Fairness, Case Management, Costs
Employment Law Civil Procedure Sex Discrimination Tribunal Panel Composition Procedural Fairness Case Management Costs

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms R Buchanan

Claimant/respondent

Freedom Choice Care Limited

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal / Interlocutory Appeal on Procedural Irregularity (panel Composition) and Adjournment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the remedies hearing panel was validly constituted under Regulation 9(4) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004
  2. 2 Whether failure to involve the Regional Employment Judge in substituting a tribunal member invalidates the remedies hearing
  3. 3 Whether the Appellant should pay costs for the adjournment

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was adjourned because there was insufficient evidence as to whether the Regional Employment Judge was involved in the appointment of Mrs Mapstone, as required by Regulation 9(4). The Appellant failed to make proper enquiries. The validity of the remedies hearing depends on compliance with the regulation. Costs for the adjournment were provisionally awarded against the Appellant, subject to further argument on the EAT's power to award costs to a CAB-represented party.

Court Disposition

Appeal adjourned for further enquiry; provisional costs order varied for further argument.

Orders

  • Regional Employment Judge for Cardiff to confirm within 28 days whether he was involved in the appointment of Mrs Mapstone and, if not, to explain the process.
  • Appeal stayed for 42 days pending response.