Philcox v CGDM Ltd (t/a Andrew Wilson & Co) (Practice and Procedure : New evidence on appeal) [2017] UKEAT 0189_16_0102 (01 February 2017)

Philcox v CGDM Ltd (t/a Andrew Wilson & Co) (Practice and Procedure : New evidence on appeal) [2017] UKEAT 0189_16_0102 (01 February 2017)

The HMRC documentation relied on by the Claimant did not demonstrate that Respondent misled the ET or acted fraudulently; it did not undermine any material finding by the ET, nor establish differential treatment or impact on credibility sufficient to affect the sex discrimination or unfair dismissal claims. The ET was best placed to assess materiality and had not erred in its approach. Strike out and deposit orders were lawfully imposed as claims had little reasonable prospect of success and litigation privilege applied to witness statements.

Citation
[2017] UKEAT 0189_16_0102
Parties
Appellant: Claimant; Respondent: Respondent
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
01 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal / Full Hearing of Appeals
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Sex Discrimination, Unfair Dismissal, Victimisation, Litigation Privilege, Fresh Evidence on Appeal, Deposit Orders, Striking Out
Employment Law Discrimination Law Sex Discrimination Unfair Dismissal Victimisation Litigation Privilege Fresh Evidence on Appeal Deposit Orders +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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claimant

Appellant

Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal / Full Hearing of Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new evidence should be admitted on appeal
  2. 2 Whether ET erred in striking out victimisation claims
  3. 3 Whether deposit orders were properly imposed

Ratio Decidendi

The HMRC documentation relied on by the Claimant did not demonstrate that Respondent misled the ET or acted fraudulently; it did not undermine any material finding by the ET, nor establish differential treatment or impact on credibility sufficient to affect the sex discrimination or unfair dismissal claims. The ET was best placed to assess materiality and had not erred in its approach. Strike out and deposit orders were lawfully imposed as claims had little reasonable prospect of success and litigation privilege applied to witness statements.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • No stay or adjournment granted
  • No review of earlier decisions permitted