Oppong v Tesco Stores Ltd (Practice and Procedure) [2017] UKEAT 0008_17_2505 (25 May 2017)

Oppong v Tesco Stores Ltd (Practice and Procedure) [2017] UKEAT 0008_17_2505 (25 May 2017)

There was no material undermining the Employment Tribunal’s approach to the Appellant’s means; the Tribunal had considered available evidence, including the Appellant’s statement of means and bank statements. The Appellant was not deprived of a fair hearing, and no arguable error of law was found in the Tribunal’s...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] UKEAT 0008_17_2505
Parties
Appellant: Claimant (Appellant); Respondent: Respondent
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
25 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs, Right to Be Heard, Strike Out, Fair Hearing, Means Assessment
Employment Law Civil Procedure Costs Right to Be Heard Strike Out Fair Hearing Means Assessment

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

Parties

Claimant (Appellant)

Appellant

Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal deprived the Appellant of a fair hearing by not permitting him to give evidence or make submissions about his means in relation to costs

Ratio Decidendi

There was no material undermining the Employment Tribunal’s approach to the Appellant’s means; the Tribunal had considered available evidence, including the Appellant’s statement of means and bank statements. The Appellant was not deprived of a fair hearing, and no arguable error of law was found in the Tribunal’s reasoning or costs order.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The Employment Tribunal’s decision ordering the Appellant to pay £4,800 towards the Respondent’s costs is upheld