No reimbursement of EAT Fees by Respondent

Is there a presumption that the successful Appellant in an appeal will recover the £400 issue fee and £1,200 hearing fee from the unsuccessful Respondent? Seemingly not, given the EAT’s decision in Old v Palace Fields Primary Academy.

The Claimant was a teacher who had been dismissed after being accused of encouraging the bullying of one of her pupils.  The employment tribunal found the dismissal was fair.  The EAT found two (minor) faults in the tribunal’s reasoning and the case was remitted back to the same employment judge.

However, the EAT did not make an order for recovery of the £400 issue fee and ordered only half of the £1,200 hearing fee to be repaid. It said that it had wide discretion as to recovery of fees and that the Claimant had only been “partially successful” because the case had been remitted back to the same Employment Judge.

/0 Comments/by

A Tribunal can’t research the internet

In East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Sanders the EAT has held that a tribunal committed a procedural error in searching on the internet for evidence that supported a claimant’s case that she was disabled, and in relying on that evidence in its conclusions. The tribunal thereby gave the impression of bias against the respondent employer. The EAT also commented on a procedural issue in the appeal, warning parties that they are obliged, when preparing a bundle of authorities, to mark the passages that are to be relied upon.

/0 Comments/by