Dandpat v The University of Bath & Anor [2009] UKEAT 0408_09_1011 (10 November 2009)

Dandpat v The University of Bath & Anor [2009] UKEAT 0408_09_1011 (10 November 2009)

The Tribunal was entitled to refuse interim relief based on its assessment that the Claimant's resignation was unlikely to be found to be principally due to protected disclosures, applying the established 'pretty good chance of success' test from Taplin. The Tribunal was not required to consider all issues or admit further evidence at this summary stage. The meaning of 'likely' as set out in Taplin remains good law and is not displaced by SCA Packaging. The direction for a pre-hearing review on jurisdiction was within the Tribunal's discretion and not an error of law.

Citation
[2009] UKEAT 0408_09_1011
Parties
Appellant: Claimant (Appellant); Respondents: University of Bath and others
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
10 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal Preliminary Hearing and Rule 3(10) Applications / Preliminary Hearing and Application for Permission to Amend Appeal Grounds
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; application under rule 3(10) refused; permission to amend grounds of appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Victimisation Discrimination, Interim Relief, Constructive Dismissal, Protected Disclosures (whistleblowing), Jurisdictional Issues, Case Management
Employment Law Discrimination Law Victimisation Discrimination Interim Relief Constructive Dismissal Protected Disclosures (whistleblowing) Jurisdictional Issues Case Management

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claimant (Appellant)

Appellant

University of Bath and others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal Preliminary Hearing and Rule 3(10) Applications / Preliminary Hearing and Application for Permission to Amend Appeal Grounds

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in refusing interim relief under section 128 Employment Rights Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal failed to consider relevant issues in the interim relief application
  3. 3 Whether the meaning of 'likely' in section 129(1) ERA 1996 should be revisited in light of recent case law

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal was entitled to refuse interim relief based on its assessment that the Claimant's resignation was unlikely to be found to be principally due to protected disclosures, applying the established 'pretty good chance of success' test from Taplin. The Tribunal was not required to consider all issues or admit further evidence at this summary stage. The meaning of 'likely' as set out in Taplin remains good law and is not displaced by SCA Packaging. The direction for a pre-hearing review on jurisdiction was within the Tribunal's discretion and not an error of law.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; application under rule 3(10) refused; permission to amend grounds of appeal refused.

Orders

  • Appeal against refusal of interim relief dismissed.
  • Application for permission to amend appeal grounds refused.