Leonard v. Southern Derbyshire Chamber of Commerce [2000] UKEAT 789_99_1905 (19 May 2000)

Leonard v. Southern Derbyshire Chamber of Commerce [2000] UKEAT 789_99_1905 (19 May 2000)

The Tribunal has inherent jurisdiction but, given the neutral stance of both parties and the limited relevance of the sexual offence allegation, it is not appropriate to exercise that jurisdiction to continue the restricted reporting order.

Citation
[2000] UKEAT 789_99_1905
Parties
Appellant: Appellant; Respondent: Respondents
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
19 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside Restricted Reporting Order / Preliminary Point Before Employment Appeal Tribunal
Outcome
restricted reporting order set aside
Legal Topics
Restricted Reporting Orders, Inherent Jurisdiction, Privacy, Open Justice
Employment Law Procedural Law Restricted Reporting Orders Inherent Jurisdiction Privacy Open 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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Appellant

Appellant

Respondents

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to Set Aside Restricted Reporting Order / Preliminary Point Before Employment Appeal Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to continue a restricted reporting order under Rule 23(2) of the EAT Rules 1993
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to continue the order

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal has inherent jurisdiction but, given the neutral stance of both parties and the limited relevance of the sexual offence allegation, it is not appropriate to exercise that jurisdiction to continue the restricted reporting order.

Court Disposition

restricted reporting order set aside

Orders

  • The limitation of the description of the parties as ordered by the Nottingham Employment Tribunal is no longer applicable.