header-logo header-logo

No second bite of the cherry, EAT rules

04 October 2007
Issue: 7291 / Categories: Legal News , Tribunals , Employment
printer mail-detail

News

Employment tribunal parties can not introduce fresh evidence as a ground for appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has confirmed.
In Hygia Professional Training v Cutter an employee was sacked for trying to poach customers while still employed. At the original tribunal hearing, the employer put forward no firm evidence of the poaching, claiming it was not aware it had to do so.

After its case was dismissed, the employer obtained four witness statements which, if accepted, would be quite compelling evidence that the ex-employee had been approaching clients to solicit work while still employed.

The EAT, however, ruled that this did not mean the employer could have a second bite at the cherry even if the new evidence was both credible and relevant: the employer should have produced the evidence at the initial hearing and neither ignorance nor possibly incompetent advice from the employer’s employment consultants changed this.

Jeremy Nixon, a consultant in the employment team at Bird & Bird, says the EAT’s judgment in this case is unlikely to surprise many employment lawyers.

“As the EAT made clear, there are significant public policy factors which support the principle that cases should, subject to the right to appeal on specific points, be heard only once. The case highlights the fact that parties and their advisers must ensure that all relevant evidence is placed before the tribunal at the initial hearing as they cannot rely on having a ‘second bite at the cherry’. As with many things, preparation for tribunal hearings is the key to success.”

Issue: 7291 / Categories: Legal News , Tribunals , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll