Employment Appeal Tribunal
Jonathan Davies successfully represented the Claimant pro bono in the important decision of Greenwood v. NWF Retail Limited which deals with the level of detail into which a tribunal's written reasons need to go in order to satisfy the tribunal's statutory obligation to give reasons.
The EAT made it clear that an employment tribunal is required to comply with rule 30(6) Employment Tribunal Rules (amongst other things, to decide relevant facts and how those facts should be applied to the law) and that failure to do so in substance will amount to an error of law.
The EAT held that "a judgment will not be erroneous simply because the structure of the rule is not visible on the surface of the decision". On the other hand, the "constituent parts will need to be more than a formal statement paying lip service to the subparagraphs of the rule" (paragraph 56).
The well known case of Meek v. City of Birmingham District Council continues to be relevant in helping decide whether there has been compliance in substance with the rule. But the EAT indicated that other caselaw which suggested that the provisions of rule 30(6) were not mandatory should not be followed.
EMPLOYMENT,ERROR OF LAW,JUDGMENTS,ORDERS,REASONS,UNFAIR DISMISSAL,JONATHAN DAVIES
The ‘capable, efficient, and helpful’ clerks’ room provides ‘a service-orientated approach and goes above and beyond in trying to ensure you have the right barrister for the job ; you have the utmost confidence in the clerking.”
‘an extremely approachable set of chambers which puts a premium on service delivery.’
Old Square Chambers is delighted to announce that is has again been ranked as a top band set in the…
Old Square’s Nadia Motraghi is acting for the BMA in its judicial review of these controversial Regulations which impose a…View More