Barreto v Wincanton Group Ltd (Practice and Procedure : Appellate jurisdiction or Reasons or Burns-Barke) [2011] UKEAT 0659_10_1404 (14 April 2011)

Barreto v Wincanton Group Ltd (Practice and Procedure : Appellate jurisdiction or Reasons or Burns-Barke) [2011] UKEAT 0659_10_1404 (14 April 2011)

The appeal is dismissed because the Claimant failed to provide a sufficient excuse for missing the deadline for a rule 3(10) hearing, and the substantive appeal has no merit as it is essentially a challenge to findings of fact. There is no requirement to exhaust EAT procedures before appealing to the Court of Appeal, but the Claimant's decision to forum-shop does not justify an extension of time. No new evidence meeting the Ladd v Marshall criteria was presented.

Citation
[2011] UKEAT 0659_10_1404
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Mr Barreto; Respondent: Bost Logistics
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
14 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal Appeal From Registrar's Order / Appeal Against Registrar's Refusal to Extend Time for Rule 3(10) Hearing and Substantive Appeal Under Rule 21
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Race Discrimination, Extension of Time, Appellate Jurisdiction, Burden of Proof, New Evidence on Appeal
Employment Law Discrimination Law Appellate Procedure Unfair Dismissal Race Discrimination Extension of Time Appellate Jurisdiction Burden of Proof +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Barreto

Claimant/appellant

Bost Logistics

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal Appeal From Registrar's Order / Appeal Against Registrar's Refusal to Extend Time for Rule 3(10) Hearing and Substantive Appeal Under Rule 21

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Appeal Tribunal erred in refusing an extension of time for a rule 3(10) hearing
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in dismissing the race discrimination claim
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant was entitled to adduce new evidence on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the Claimant failed to provide a sufficient excuse for missing the deadline for a rule 3(10) hearing, and the substantive appeal has no merit as it is essentially a challenge to findings of fact. There is no requirement to exhaust EAT procedures before appealing to the Court of Appeal, but the Claimant's decision to forum-shop does not justify an extension of time. No new evidence meeting the Ladd v Marshall criteria was presented.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal refused.

Orders

  • Appeal against Registrar's refusal to extend time dismissed under rule 21.
  • Substantive appeal dismissed under rule 21 and, in the alternative, under rule 3(10).