Grant v In 2 Focus Sales Development Services Ltd [2007] UKEAT 0310_06_3001 (30 January 2007)

Grant v In 2 Focus Sales Development Services Ltd [2007] UKEAT 0310_06_3001 (30 January 2007)

The EAT has jurisdiction to hear appeals on points of law arising from administrative acts of the Tribunal Secretary. Reduction in size of a prescribed form due to faxing does not render it non-compliant unless expressly stated in the rules. The Secretary's failure to provide an adequate explanation for rejection was an error of law.

Citation
[2007] UKEAT 0310_06_3001
Parties
Appellant: Appellant; Respondent: Respondent
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
30 January 2007
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal From Administrative Rejection of Claim Form
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Prescribed Forms, Procedural Compliance, Jurisdiction of EAT, Access to Justice
Employment Law Administrative Law Prescribed Forms Procedural Compliance Jurisdiction of EAT Access to Justice

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Appellant

Appellant

Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal From Administrative Rejection of Claim Form

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the EAT has jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the administrative rejection of a claim form by the Tribunal Secretary
  2. 2 Whether reduction in size of a prescribed form due to faxing renders it non-compliant
  3. 3 Whether the Secretary's explanation for rejection met the requirements of the rules

Ratio Decidendi

The EAT has jurisdiction to hear appeals on points of law arising from administrative acts of the Tribunal Secretary. Reduction in size of a prescribed form due to faxing does not render it non-compliant unless expressly stated in the rules. The Secretary's failure to provide an adequate explanation for rejection was an error of law.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed