Mallinson v Bournemouth Polytechnic [1992] UKEAT 549_92_2409 (24 September 1992)

Mallinson v Bournemouth Polytechnic [1992] UKEAT 549_92_2409 (24 September 1992)

The tribunal chairman exercised his discretion lawfully and appropriately in refusing further discovery and additional witness orders at the interlocutory stage; there was no error of law or plainly wrong exercise of discretion justifying appellate intervention.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1992] UKEAT 549_92_2409
Parties
Appellant: Dr W D E Mallinson; Respondent: Bournemouth Polytechnic
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
24 September 1992
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Interlocutory Order in Unfair Dismissal Proceedings / Appeal Against Interlocutory Order (discovery and Witness Orders) Prior to Substantive Hearing Before Industrial Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Constructive Dismissal, Interlocutory Orders, Discovery, Witness Orders, Tribunal Procedure
Employment Law Unfair Dismissal Constructive Dismissal Interlocutory Orders Discovery Witness Orders Tribunal Procedure

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr W D E Mallinson

Appellant

Bournemouth Polytechnic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Interlocutory Order in Unfair Dismissal Proceedings / Appeal Against Interlocutory Order (discovery and Witness Orders) Prior to Substantive Hearing Before Industrial Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Industrial Tribunal Chairman erred in refusing further discovery and additional witness orders prior to the substantive hearing of an unfair dismissal claim

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal chairman exercised his discretion lawfully and appropriately in refusing further discovery and additional witness orders at the interlocutory stage; there was no error of law or plainly wrong exercise of discretion justifying appellate intervention.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed