Hassan v Barts Health NHS Trust & Anor [2017] UKEAT 0042_16_1107 (11 July 2017)

Hassan v Barts Health NHS Trust & Anor [2017] UKEAT 0042_16_1107 (11 July 2017)

Directions and orders made before receipt of ET3 response were premature and unlawful; transfer application should have been heard before jurisdictional issues; applications for disclosure and admission of further evidence were irrelevant and without merit.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] UKEAT 0042_16_1107
Parties
Appellant: Mr M Hassan; Respondents: London Central Employment Tribunal and Respondents
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
11 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal / Full Hearing of Appeal Against Preliminary Orders
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; directions and orders of 26 August, 9 September, and 2 October 2015 set aside; applications for disclosure and admission of evidence refused.
Legal Topics
Bias, Misconduct, Procedural Irregularity, Jurisdiction, Transfer of Proceedings, Disclosure of Evidence
Employment Law Civil Procedure Bias Misconduct Procedural Irregularity Jurisdiction Transfer of Proceedings Disclosure of Evidence

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr M Hassan

Appellant

London Central Employment Tribunal and Respondents

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal / Full Hearing of Appeal Against Preliminary Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal had jurisdiction to direct a preliminary hearing before receipt of ET3 response
  2. 2 Whether the application for transfer to another region should have been listed before the preliminary hearing on jurisdictional issues
  3. 3 Whether applications for disclosure and admission of further evidence should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

Directions and orders made before receipt of ET3 response were premature and unlawful; transfer application should have been heard before jurisdictional issues; applications for disclosure and admission of further evidence were irrelevant and without merit.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; directions and orders of 26 August, 9 September, and 2 October 2015 set aside; applications for disclosure and admission of evidence refused.

Orders

  • Directions of 26 August 2015 and 9 September 2015 set aside
  • Judgment and Order of 2 October 2015 set aside