header-logo header-logo

No second bite of the cherry, EAT rules

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

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll