Gentle & Ors v. Perkins Group Ltd [2000] UKEAT 670_99_1412 (14 December 2000)

Gentle & Ors v. Perkins Group Ltd [2000] UKEAT 670_99_1412 (14 December 2000)

There were no grounds under Rule 33 for reviewing the order of 17th May 2000, as there was no error, lack of notice, or interests of justice requiring review. The only matters properly before the EAT were those set out in the Hillier Form, and no further issues remained for appeal.

Citation
[2000] UKEAT 670_99_1412
Parties
Appellants: Gentle, Rackstraw and Robinson; Respondent: Perkins Group Ltd
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
14 December 2000
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal / Application for Review of Procedural Order Limiting Grounds of Appeal
Outcome
Application for review refused
Legal Topics
Re Engagement, Reinstatement, Amendment of Notice of Appeal, Costs, Compensation, Procedural Review

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gentle, Rackstraw and Robinson

Appellants

Perkins Group Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal / Application for Review of Procedural Order Limiting Grounds of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the appellants should be granted leave to amend the Notice of Appeal beyond the previously authorised grounds (the 'Hillier Form')
  2. 2 Whether the interests of justice require a review of the order of 17th May 2000 limiting the grounds of appeal

Ratio Decidendi

There were no grounds under Rule 33 for reviewing the order of 17th May 2000, as there was no error, lack of notice, or interests of justice requiring review. The only matters properly before the EAT were those set out in the Hillier Form, and no further issues remained for appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for review refused

Orders

  • No review of the order of 17th May 2000 is granted.
  • No further issues remain for appeal before the EAT beyond those already determined.