Laing v Bury & Bolton Citizens Advice (VICTIMISATION) (Rev1) [2022] EAT 85 (01 June 2022)

Laing v Bury & Bolton Citizens Advice (VICTIMISATION) (Rev1) [2022] EAT 85 (01 June 2022)

The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that while the Tribunal did not err in making deposit orders or refusing to extend time for payment, and its procedural decisions on witness orders and hearsay evidence were within its discretion, the Tribunal's focus on the claimant's conduct as his own representative and the strong language used created a real risk of unconscious antipathy affecting its decision on the victimisation complaint. Accordingly, the victimisation issues were remitted for rehearing before a new tribunal.

Citation
[2022] EAT 85
Parties
Claimant: Claimant (name not specified); Respondent: Sodexho Limited
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
01 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Employment Tribunal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Employment Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; victimisation complaint remitted for rehearing before a new tribunal; other grounds dismissed.
Legal Topics
Victimisation, Direct Race Discrimination, Direct Sex Discrimination, Deposit Orders, Extension of Time, Witness Orders, Procedural Impropriety
Employment Law Victimisation Direct Race Discrimination Direct Sex Discrimination Deposit Orders Extension of Time Witness Orders Procedural Impropriety

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claimant (name not specified)

Claimant

Sodexho Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Tribunal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Employment Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in making deposit orders against the claimant for direct race and sex discrimination claims
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal erred in refusing to extend time for payment of deposit orders
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal erred in refusing to make or enforce witness orders for certain witnesses

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that while the Tribunal did not err in making deposit orders or refusing to extend time for payment, and its procedural decisions on witness orders and hearsay evidence were within its discretion, the Tribunal's focus on the claimant's conduct as his own representative and the strong language used created a real risk of unconscious antipathy affecting its decision on the victimisation complaint. Accordingly, the victimisation issues were remitted for rehearing before a new tribunal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; victimisation complaint remitted for rehearing before a new tribunal; other grounds dismissed.

Orders

  • Victimisation complaint to be reheard by a freshly-constituted tribunal.
  • All other appeals dismissed.