Even where lists of issues have been agreed between the parties they should be scrutinised by employment judges to weed out trivial allegations.

The protected disclosure claim was rejected as the reason for the forced dismissal was the handling by the school authorities rather than the making of the protected disclosure

Price v Surrey County Council & Anor [2011] UKEAT 0450_10_2710

    Helping You     About     Links     Contact     Site Info     HOME

• Good case management by judges includes ascertaining that lists of issues are separated from key factual allegations. Trivial allegations must be weeded out.
• The tribunal system is suffering from the lack of basic legal help for unrepresented litigants.
• Carnwath LJ in the EAT found that the Claimant had been constructively dismissed although the whistleblowing claim failed.
• Buckland v Bournemouth University [2010] IRLR 445 was quoted whereby the repudiatory breach was not cured by a subsequent appeal hearing.

The EAT made a plea for the provision of basic legal help for unrepresented litigants in order to lessen the impact of unwarranted allegations on the justice system.

Concerns were expressed regarding lists of issues, that central issues such as "unfair dismissal and detriment due to a protected disclosure" were not separated from key factual allegations. The EAT therefore issued guidance on drafting lists of issues, that "even where lists of issues have been agreed between the parties, they should not be accepted uncritically by employment judges at the case management stage. They have their own duty to ensure that the case is clearly and efficiently presented." This advice was repeated regarding the conduct of the hearing.

The Tribunal's finding of unfair constructive dismissal was upheld in light of a misleading letter in which findings of an internal inquiry were conveyed. Buckland v Bournemouth University [2010] IRLR 445 was followed that the repudiatory breach was not cured by the appeal hearing.

The Tribunal's rejection of the protected disclosure claim was upheld as the dismissal did not result from the making of the protected disclosure, but from its handling by the school authorities.

Langstaff HJ in the EAT similarly criticised the employment tribunal in Land Rover v Short for not deciding what was included in the list of issues for determination until it made its decision. This failure "so deprived the employer of the opportunity of asking for an adjournment" that it was "significantly unfair".

© 2011 Workrep