Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
An appeal by the Respondent employers against the Tribunal�s decision that no order for costs should be made against the Claimant, her claims of detriment on the ground of protected disclosures and constructive unfair dismissal having all been dismissed after a hearing lasting some 12 days.
No error of law was disclosed in the Tribunal�s reasoning and the perversity challenge failed.� Appeal dismissed.
The Claimant contends that no error of law or insufficiency of reasoning is disclosed in the judgment; and that the Tribunal�s decision, that there was no unreasonable conduct of the proceedings and that an award of costs would not be appropriate in all the circumstances, was a decision well within the range of decision-making legitimately open to them on the facts.
We should say at the outset that Ms Steinhardt, appearing for the Claimant, made it clear at the start of the hearing that the potential, preliminary issues referred to in the papers, concerning a possible application by the Claimant to call fresh evidence and for a review of the Tribunal�s decision, are no longer pursued.� We shall therefore say nothing further about them.
The background to this appeal, in summary, is as follows, as appears from the Tribunal�s substantive judgment on the merits and other documents in the bundle before us.�
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.