Harris v Opus (Hrd) Ltd [1998] UKEAT 160_98_2207 (22 July 1998)

Harris v Opus (Hrd) Ltd [1998] UKEAT 160_98_2207 (22 July 1998)

The Tribunal was entitled to dismiss the claims as the Respondent was exempt from the Disability Discrimination Act, there was no evidence of sex discrimination or breach of contract, redundancy was justified, and procedural directions were not followed by the Appellant. The Tribunal's refusal to adjourn or consider non-compliant evidence was within its discretion and not a legal error.

Citation
[1998] UKEAT 160_98_2207
Parties
Appellant: Margaret Harris; Respondent: Opus (HRD) Ltd
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
22 July 1998
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Preliminary Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Sex Discrimination, Unfair Dismissal, Redundancy, Health & Safety, Breach of Contract, Written Statement of Employment Particulars
Employment Law Disability Discrimination Sex Discrimination Unfair Dismissal Redundancy Health & Safety Breach of Contract Written Statement of Employment Particulars

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

Parties

Margaret Harris

Appellant

Opus (HRD) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Preliminary Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Industrial Tribunal erred in dismissing claims of disability discrimination, sex discrimination, unfair dismissal, redundancy, breach of contract, and failure to provide written particulars of employment.
  2. 2 Whether procedural fairness was denied due to non-compliance with Tribunal directions.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal was entitled to dismiss the claims as the Respondent was exempt from the Disability Discrimination Act, there was no evidence of sex discrimination or breach of contract, redundancy was justified, and procedural directions were not followed by the Appellant. The Tribunal's refusal to adjourn or consider non-compliant evidence was within its discretion and not a legal error.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed