Murray v. Hm Land Registry [2000] UKEAT 813_00_2211 (22 November 2000)

Murray v. Hm Land Registry [2000] UKEAT 813_00_2211 (22 November 2000)

There was no reviewable decision in the pre-hearing opinion, and the Tribunal made no error in law or fact in dismissing the claim for constructive and unfair dismissal; the criticisms in the assessment were bona fide, technical competence was not in issue, and the Tribunal's approach was correct.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2000] UKEAT 813_00_2211
Parties
Appellant: Mr Murray; Respondent: HM Land Registry
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
22 November 2000
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Preliminary Hearing on Two Appeals: (1) Refusal of Review of Pre Hearing Opinion; (2) Dismissal of Claim for Constructive and Unfair Dismissal
Outcome
Both appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Constructive Dismissal, Unfair Dismissal, Employment Tribunal Procedure, Review of Tribunal Decisions
Employment Law Constructive Dismissal Unfair Dismissal Employment Tribunal Procedure Review of Tribunal Decisions

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 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Murray

Appellant

HM Land Registry

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Preliminary Hearing on Two Appeals: (1) Refusal of Review of Pre Hearing Opinion; (2) Dismissal of Claim for Constructive and Unfair Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether refusal to review a pre-hearing opinion is appealable
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing claim for constructive and unfair dismissal
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal failed to consider technical competence and fairness in promotion process

Ratio Decidendi

There was no reviewable decision in the pre-hearing opinion, and the Tribunal made no error in law or fact in dismissing the claim for constructive and unfair dismissal; the criticisms in the assessment were bona fide, technical competence was not in issue, and the Tribunal's approach was correct.

Court Disposition

Both appeals dismissed