header-logo header-logo

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

EMPLOYMENT LAW

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

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
back-to-top-scroll