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

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
back-to-top-scroll