Inadequate Reasons Appeals

The Court of Appeal held, earlier this week, that the Burns v Consignia procedure adopted by the EAT is lawful, welcome and should not be interfered with by further appeals.

In Burns v Consignia, the EAT developed a procedure for asking tribunals to clarify their reasoning when appeals were brought on grounds of inadequate reasoning.

The Court of Appeal was asked to declare that procedure unlawful on the basis that there was no statutory jurisdiction; alternatively that the power should be exercised in rare circumstances only.

The Court of Appeal, instead, declared the procedure lawful (under each of the EAT's statutory powers, the ET's statutory duties to provide reasons, and as a matter of inherent jurisdiction outside the rules).

The Court of Appeal went on to hold that the Burns procedure can be used freely and is a matter of discretionary exercise of case management powers by the EAT.

Barke v SEETEC Business Technology Centre