header-logo header-logo

Employment Appeal Tribunal

15 February 2013
Issue: 7548 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Collen v Partners of Haxby Practice UKEAT/0120/12/DM, [2013] All ER (D) 11 (Feb)

A divergence between a tribunal’s oral and written reasons would never, without more, give rise to a valid ground of appeal. Normally any written reasons supplied pursuant to r 30(3) of the Tribunal Rules would closely correspond to the oral reasons given at the conclusion of the hearing. The usual practice was that the oral reasons were recorded on tape and if a request for written reasons was made, a transcript would be provided to the judge, and would constitute, in effect, the first draft of the written reasons. There would almost always, however, be some degree of editing. However, every now and then there would be cases where the process of revision was so extensive that whether the judge appreciated it or not, the reasoning expressed in support of the conclusion differed in substance from the oral reasoning: sometimes the difference might be patent, but sometimes it might only be apparent on a careful analysis. Such a departure from the initially expressed

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll