header-logo header-logo

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

No second bite of the cherry, EAT rules

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

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

JMW—Belinda Brooke

JMW—Belinda Brooke

Employment and people solutions offering boosted by partner hire

NEWS

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
back-to-top-scroll