header-logo header-logo

EMPLOYMENT LAW

06 September 2007
Issue: 7287 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Rance v Secretary of State for Health [2007] IRLR 665, [2007] All ER (D) 81 (May)

Guidance is given on the circumstances in which new points can be taken on appeal when they were not raised at the employment tribunal:

-   There is a discretion to allow a new point of law to be argued in the EAT.
-  This discretion covers new points and the re-opening of conceded points.
-  The discretion is exercised only in exceptional circumstances.
- It is even more exceptional to exercise the discretion where fresh issues of fact would have to be investigated.
-  Where the new point relates to jurisdiction, it remains a matter of discretion.
-   A new point may be permitted where, for example:

(i) it would be unjust to allow the other party to get away with some deception or unfair conduct which meant that the point was not taken below;

(ii) the point can be taken if the EAT is in possession of all the material necessary to dispose of the matter fairly without recourse to a further hearing;

(iii) the new point enables the EAT plainly to say from existing material that the employment tribunal judgment was a nullity; in such a case, it is the EAT’s duty to put right the law on the facts available to the EAT;

(iv) the EAT can see a glaring injustice in refusing to allow an unrepresented party to rely on evidence which could have been adduced at the employment tribunal;

(v) the EAT can see an obvious knock-out point;

(vi) the issue is a discrete one of pure law requiring no further factual enquiry;

(vii) it is of particular public importance for a legal point to be decided, provided no further factual investigation and no further evaluation by the specialist tribunal is required.

- A new point may be disallowed where, for example:

(a) what is relied upon is a chance of establishing lack of jurisdiction by calling fresh evidence;

(b) the issue arises as a result of lack of skill by a represented party (that is not a sufficient reason);

(c) the point was not taken below as a result of a tactical
decision by a representative or a party;

(d) all the material is before the EAT but what is required is an evaluation and an assessment of this material and application of the law to it by the specialist first instance tribunal;

(e) a represented party has fought and lost a jurisdictional issue and now seeks a new hearing; that applies whether the jurisdictional issue is the same as that originally canvassed or is a different way of establishing jurisdiction from that originally canvassed;

(f) what is relied upon is the high value of the case (per Judge McMullen at para 50).

Issue: 7287 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Birketts—trainee cohort

Birketts—trainee cohort

Firm welcomes new cohort of 29 trainee solicitors for 2025

Keoghs—four appointments

Keoghs—four appointments

Four partner hires expand legal expertise in Scotland and Northern Ireland

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Real estate team in Yorkshire welcomes new partner

NEWS
Robert Taylor of 360 Law Services warns in this week's NLJ that adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) risks entrenching disadvantage for SME law firms, unless tools are tailored to their needs
From oligarchs to cosmetic clinics, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) target journalists, activists and ordinary citizens with intimidating legal tactics. Writing in NLJ this week, Sadie Whittam of Lancaster University explores the weaponisation of litigation to silence critics
Delays and dysfunction continue to mount in the county court, as revealed in a scathing Justice Committee report and under discussion this week by NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School. Bulk claims—especially from private parking firms—are overwhelming the system, with 8,000 cases filed weekly
Writing in NLJ this week, Thomas Rothwell and Kavish Shah of Falcon Chambers unpack the surprise inclusion of a ban on upwards-only rent reviews in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve charts the turbulent progress of the Employment Rights Bill through the House of Lords, in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll