Elys v Marks And Spencer Plc & Ors (Practice and Procedure : Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity) [2014] UKEAT 0518_13_0404 (04 April 2014)

Elys v Marks And Spencer Plc & Ors (Practice and Procedure : Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity) [2014] UKEAT 0518_13_0404 (04 April 2014)

On the balance of probabilities, the tribunal member was not inattentive except for a brief, explained episode of 15-20 seconds, which was trivial and did not amount to a material procedural irregularity. A well-informed observer, knowing the explanation and facts, would not consider there was a real risk of inattention or unfairness. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2014] UKEAT 0518_13_0404
Parties
Appellant: Laycy Elys; Respondent: Marks & Spencer PLC
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
04 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal Against Dismissal of Complaints and Refusal to Review Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Bias, Procedural Irregularity, Review of Tribunal Decisions, Inattentive Tribunal Member
Employment Law Judicial Procedure Bias Procedural Irregularity Review of Tribunal Decisions Inattentive Tribunal Member

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Laycy Elys

Appellant

Marks & Spencer PLC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal Against Dismissal of Complaints and Refusal to Review Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a tribunal member's alleged inattention or appearance of sleep constituted a material procedural irregularity or bias sufficient to vitiate the hearing
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Tribunal was correct to determine for itself if a procedural irregularity occurred
  3. 3 What is the correct approach for an appellate tribunal in such circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities, the tribunal member was not inattentive except for a brief, explained episode of 15-20 seconds, which was trivial and did not amount to a material procedural irregularity. A well-informed observer, knowing the explanation and facts, would not consider there was a real risk of inattention or unfairness. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed