Oxford Brookes University v Chalmers & Anor [1998] UKEAT 434_98_0103 (1 March 1998)
The Industrial Tribunal was entitled to refuse to hear the employer's s.1(3) defence as a preliminary issue after expert evidence had been obtained, as the discretion to do so arises only at the time specified in Rule 9(2E), and the Tribunal properly exercised its discretion based on the timing, expense incurred,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1998] UKEAT 434_98_0103
- Parties
- Appellant: Henmans Solicitors; Respondent: UNISON
- Jurisdiction
- United Kingdom
- Judgment Date
- 01 March 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Interlocutory Appeal / Appeal Against Industrial Tribunal Case Management Decision
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Equal Pay, Sex Discrimination, Case Management, Expert Evidence
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Henmans Solicitors
Appellant
UNISON
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Appeal / Appeal Against Industrial Tribunal Case Management Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Industrial Tribunal had discretion to hear the employer's s.1(3) Equal Pay Act defence before determining the equal value issue
- 2 Proper timing and procedure for raising the material factor defence under Equal Pay Act s.1(3)
Ratio Decidendi
The Industrial Tribunal was entitled to refuse to hear the employer's s.1(3) defence as a preliminary issue after expert evidence had been obtained, as the discretion to do so arises only at the time specified in Rule 9(2E), and the Tribunal properly exercised its discretion based on the timing, expense incurred, and risk of confusion.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment