NEW EAT DECISIONS
The following cases were placed on the EAT website on 24th December. The transcripts can be downloaded from http://wood.ccta.gov.uk/eat/eatjudgments.nsf
Surrey Health BC v Crooks [Holland J., 29.10.99]: The Respondent to an EAT hearing failed to lodge a skeleton argument until the morning of the hearing. The Appellant applied to debar the Respondent from playing any further part in the appeal. The EAT declined to make such an order, but made a partial order that the Respondent could not rely on any authorities or any arguments that did not appear in the ETs decision.
The EAT said that the factors influencing it in going that far were that the ETs decision was forensically bold and the Appellant had anticipated the Respondents main argument in its own skeleton argument.
Barry v Caledonian International [Lord Johnston, 1.12.99]: Applicant presented his IT1 within 1 month of dismissal. The tribunal declined to register it on the grounds that it did not give sufficient particulars of the complaint. The Applicants union failed to respond to the tribunals invitation to particularise the IT1 further and, five months later, the Applicant lodged a second IT1 after telephoning the tribunal to chase the progress of his claim. The ET held that the second IT1 was presented out of time and refused to extend time. The EAT overturned this decision. It held that the first IT1 was validly presented within three months, and that since registration was a different matter to presentation, the original IT1 remained valid.
Bridgewater Housing Association v Harrigan [Lord Johnston, 2.12.99]: A bald statement by an Employment Tribunal that a TUPE transfer has occurred is unacceptable. Tribunals should give full reasons for their decision, and the failure to do so is an appealable error, notwithstanding that the question of whether a transfer has occurred is one of fact.