Court: Employment Appeal Tribunal
CA & Ors v News Group Newspapers UKEAT/0075/16/RN
Whether the employment tribunal had erred in revoking a restricted reporting order made in proceedings involving claims for unfair dismissal and sex discrimination that were withdrawn after the order was made. Held: A restricted reporting order could continue in effect after the claim was withdrawn, but it could equally be discharged by the tribunal on a subsequent application by the press. On the facts, the judge had not erred in conducting the balancing exercise. Appeal dismissed.
Solicitor could claim compensation for earlier detrimental treatment due to protected disclosures, even where he had been subsequently lawfully expelled from an LLP
Roberts v Wilson Solicitors LLP & Ors UKEAT/0339/15/RN
The employment tribunal had erred in striking out a claim for compensation for post-termination financial losses, where the appellant solicitor, who had been lawfully expelled from a limited liability partnership, argued that he had suffered detriment due to previous protected disclosures under Employment Rights Act 1996 whistleblowing provisions. However, he would need to demonstrate that losses were attributable to the earlier unlawful treatment.
Serco Ltd v Wells UKEAT/0330/15/RN
Whether an employment tribunal judge was permitted to overturn a case management order made by another judge. The court held that an order could only be varied or revoked by another judge where a material change in circumstances had occurred, where law or fact had been misstated or where there had been an omission to state a relevant fact.
Secretary of State for Justice v Lown UKEAT/0082/15/BA
The employment tribunal had erred in finding that an employer had unfairly dismissed an employee in circumstances in which the allegations of bad faith had not been put to the witnesses during the hearing. Further, a Polkey reduction is applicable to both substantive and procedural unfairness.
British Broadcasting Corporation v Roden UKEAT/0385/14/DA
A privacy order given by an employment tribunal anonymised the complainant because he was subject to an allegation of sexual harassment. Held: the privacy order was lifted and the name original complainant was made public. The EAT held that the tribunal failed to balance the complainant’s rights under ECHR, art 8 and the public interest in open justice.