Hulley & Kirkwood Consulting Engineers Ltd v Marston (Unfair Dismissal : no sub-topic) [2014] UKEAT 0078_13_2102 (21 February 2014)

Hulley & Kirkwood Consulting Engineers Ltd v Marston (Unfair Dismissal : no sub-topic) [2014] UKEAT 0078_13_2102 (21 February 2014)

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by failing to provide adequate reasons for its decision, specifically by not making sufficient findings of fact, not providing a concise statement of the applicable law, and not explaining how the facts and law were applied to reach its conclusions. This failure rendered the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] UKEAT 0078_13_2102
Parties
Claimant: Claimant (Name not specified); Respondent: Respondent (Name not specified)
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
21 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; case remitted for rehearing by a new Tribunal.
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Maternity Rights, Sex Discrimination, Redundancy, Victimisation
Employment Law Discrimination Law Unfair Dismissal Maternity Rights Sex Discrimination Redundancy Victimisation

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 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claimant (Name not specified)

Claimant

Respondent (Name not specified)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal provided adequate reasons for its decision under rule 30(6)
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal was unfair under s.98 and s.99 of ERA 1996
  3. 3 Whether there was sex and maternity discrimination under the Equality Act 2010

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by failing to provide adequate reasons for its decision, specifically by not making sufficient findings of fact, not providing a concise statement of the applicable law, and not explaining how the facts and law were applied to reach its conclusions. This failure rendered the judgment non-compliant with rule 30(6) of the Employment Tribunal Rules, necessitating remission to a new Tribunal for rehearing.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; case remitted for rehearing by a new Tribunal.

Orders

  • The Employment Tribunal's decision is set aside.
  • The case is remitted to a fresh Tribunal for rehearing.