Pritchard v Hamer [1996] UKEAT 27_95_3101 (31 January 1996)

The interests of justice require that reasons be given for decisions; the previous dismissal of the appeal without reasons was an error, warranting review and relisting for a full hearing.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [1996] UKEAT 27_95_3101
Parties: Appellant: Mr Ronald Pritchard; Respondent: Mrs Ann Hamer
Jurisdiction: United Kingdom
Judgment Date: 31 January 1996
Procedural Posture: Employment Appeal / Preliminary Hearing; Application for Review
Outcome: Appeal to proceed to full hearing
Legal Topics: Constructive Dismissal, Unlawful Deduction From Wages, Appeal Procedure, Review of Tribunal Decisions

Employment Law Constructive Dismissal Unlawful Deduction From Wages Appeal 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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Mr Ronald Pritchard

Appellant

Mrs Ann Hamer

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Preliminary Hearing; Application for Review

Legal Issues

1 Whether the Industrial Tribunal erred in law regarding constructive dismissal
2 Whether the Employment Appeal Tribunal erred by dismissing the appeal without giving reasons

Ratio Decidendi

The interests of justice require that reasons be given for decisions; the previous dismissal of the appeal without reasons was an error, warranting review and relisting for a full hearing.

Court Disposition

Appeal to proceed to full hearing

Orders

Case directed to proceed to a full hearing of the Tribunal
Parties to exchange and lodge Skeleton Arguments at least 28 days before the full hearing date

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.