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.
Mr Michael Supperstone Q.C. (Sitting as a Deputy High Court judge) ____________________
Mr James Goudie, Q.C. and Mr Peter Oldbam instructed by London Borough of Barking and Dagenham for the Appellant Mr Nigel Giffin, Q.C. and Fiona Scolding instructed by Fisher Meredith for the First Respondent Hearing dates: 24 and 25 January, 2008 ____________________
Longmore L.J. agreed with Arden L.J. at para 133. Toulson L.J. "would not press [his] doubts as to the point of disagreement with the other members of the Court about whether there was the requisite link" (para 152, and see paras 148-151).
Applying that principle Mr Goudie submits that the Tribunal should have referred the research evidence such as that published by the BUPA Research Team in 2004 to the parties to give them an opportunity to deal with it.
However, adopting the approach of the Court of Appeal in Richardson, Mr Giffin submitted that there had been do substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice in the present case arising from the Tribunal's failure to bring the research evidence to the attention of the parties.
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.