March v. The Big Pig Company Ltd [2000] UKEAT 213_00_0407 (4 July 2000)

March v. The Big Pig Company Ltd [2000] UKEAT 213_00_0407 (4 July 2000)

It is arguable that the Tribunal erred in law by proceeding in the absence of the Appellant and by permitting a substantial counterclaim out of time; these grounds warrant investigation at a full hearing.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2000] UKEAT 213_00_0407
Parties
Appellant: Appellant; Respondent: Respondent
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
04 July 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Preliminary Hearing
Outcome
Full hearing ordered at EAT on limited grounds
Legal Topics
Review of Tribunal Decision, Counterclaim, Absence of Party, Dishonesty Allegations
Employment Review of Tribunal Decision Counterclaim Absence of Party Dishonesty Allegations

Source-derived case record

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Appellant

Appellant

Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Preliminary Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal erred by proceeding in the absence of the Appellant
  2. 2 Whether leave to permit a substantial counterclaim out of time was proper
  3. 3 Whether the Respondent erred in law by failing to grant a review

Ratio Decidendi

It is arguable that the Tribunal erred in law by proceeding in the absence of the Appellant and by permitting a substantial counterclaim out of time; these grounds warrant investigation at a full hearing.

Court Disposition

Full hearing ordered at EAT on limited grounds

Orders

  • Skeleton arguments to be filed 14 days before full hearing
  • Full chronology to be provided