Employment Appeal Tribunal cases last week – 12.08.2013 to 18.08.2013


In this post we’ll take a look – as usual – at a number of judgments (though not all judgments) that have been handed down by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in the last week. This includes the following cases:

  1. Millin v Capsticks LLP [2013] UKEAT 0225_12_0608 (bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity) – the Employment Tribunal found against the Claimant, an experienced barrister, in her sex discrimination claims, primarily on the basis that the Tribunal saw the Respondent’s witness evidence as more credible than the witness evidence she had put forward. The Claimant appeal against this finding, with one of the main grounds of appeal being that there was an “inequality of arms” at the Tribunal, with the Respondent being represented by Counsel but the Claimant being a litigant in person. The Employment Appeal Tribunal rejected the Claimant’s appeals on the basis that she had in fact had a fair trial.
  2. Lipinski v Ebbsfleet Autospray Centre Ltd [2013] UKEAT/0288/12/JOJ (continuity of empoyment, reinstatement, unfair dismissal) – The Claimant in this case succeeded with a claim for discrimination (“the first claim”) in 2010. However, he subsequently brought further proceedings (“the second claim”) in 2012, with one of these claims being victimization. The Employment Judge struck out for the claim for victimization, seeing it as an abuse of process under¬†Henderson v Henderson. The Claimant appealed but his appeal was rejected as there was no error of law by the Tribunal.
  3. Connect Personnel Ltd v Domanska [2013] UKEAT/0563/12/BA (amendment of claim, practice and procedure) – The Claimant succeeded in a claim for pregnancy discrimination after her employment was terminated by the Respondent. The Respondent appealed on the basis that she had not raised a relevant point in her ET1 and that this point should therefore not have been heard at the Employment Tribunal. However, the Employment Appeal Tribunal found that Counsel for the Respondent had raised the matter in submissions and that it was therefore plainly a live point. Appeal dismissed.
  4. Pinnock v Birmingham City Council & Anor UKEAT/0185/13/MC (costs, disclosure and practice of procedure) – The Claimant made claims for unfair dismissal, disability discrimination and whistleblowing but there were problems with keeping to the timetable allotted for the case, resulting in the fact that there was a conflict over documents to be included in the bundle and the exchange of witness statements did not take place. This meant that the Tribunal did not have a witness statement for the Claimant. The Employment Tribunal adjourned the hearing (later striking it out) and made an Order that the Claimant was to pay the Respondent’s costs. The Claimant appealed against various issues relating to disclosure and costs. The Claimant succeeded in part, succeeding on one of the grounds of appeal relating to disclosure and on the question of her ability to pay.