Daly v The Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (Appellate jurisdiction : reasons : Burns- Barke : Costs) [2019] UKEAT 0107_18_2203 (22 March 2019)

Daly v The Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (Appellate jurisdiction : reasons : Burns- Barke : Costs) [2019] UKEAT 0107_18_2203 (22 March 2019)

The ET failed to provide adequate reasons for its findings on allegations X and Y, specifically regarding false reports and refusal to provide supporting evidence, constituting an error of law. The ET also erred in law by failing to demonstrate it exercised its discretion in awarding costs, moving directly from jurisdiction to quantum without considering whether to make an award. The late disclosure did not amount to procedural unfairness as the Claimant could have addressed it at the hearing.

Citation
[2019] UKEAT 0107_18_2203
Parties
Appellant: Claimant; Respondent: Respondent
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
22 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal (eat) Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Employment Tribunal on Liability and Costs
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part on liability and allowed on costs; remitted to ET for reconsideration of allegations X and Y and costs.
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Harassment, Protected Disclosure, Costs in Employment Proceedings, Adequacy of Reasons, Procedural Fairness
Employment Law Discrimination Law Disability Discrimination Harassment Protected Disclosure Costs in Employment Proceedings Adequacy of Reasons Procedural Fairness

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claimant

Appellant

Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal (eat) Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Employment Tribunal on Liability and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal (ET) provided adequate reasons for its decision on liability
  2. 2 Whether the ET erred in law in its approach to awarding costs
  3. 3 Whether procedural unfairness arose from late disclosure by the Respondent

Ratio Decidendi

The ET failed to provide adequate reasons for its findings on allegations X and Y, specifically regarding false reports and refusal to provide supporting evidence, constituting an error of law. The ET also erred in law by failing to demonstrate it exercised its discretion in awarding costs, moving directly from jurisdiction to quantum without considering whether to make an award. The late disclosure did not amount to procedural unfairness as the Claimant could have addressed it at the hearing.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part on liability and allowed on costs; remitted to ET for reconsideration of allegations X and Y and costs.

Orders

  • Remit issues relating to allegations X and Y to the same ET if practical for reconsideration.
  • Remit costs decision to ET for reconsideration in light of proper exercise of discretion.