Burns v Consignia Plc (No 2)

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
CourtEmployment Appeal Tribunal
Judgment Date14 January 2004
Date14 January 2004


Before Mr Justice Burton, Mr D. J. Hodgkins and Miss G. Mills

Royal Mail Group plc (formerly Consignia plc) and Another (No 2)

Employment tribunals - must give reasons

All tribunals should give reasons

The practice and guidance set out in English v Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd (Practice Note)WLR ((2002) 1 WLR 2409), concerning the requirement of judges to give adequate reasons for their decisions, and the procedures to be adopted on an appeal brought on the ground of a failure to give such reasons, applied not only to the courts but to any tribunal which exercised similar powers, gave the opportunity for both sides to be heard before it and acted in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (Mr Justice Burton, Mr D. J. Hodgkins and Miss G. Mills) so held on January 14, 2004 when dismissing an appeal by Miss Maureen Burns against the decision of an employment tribunal at Watford on September 16, 2003 to uphold its earlier decision on June 28, 2003 to strike out her claim against her former employer, Royal Mail Group plc, formerly Consignia plc, for unfair constructive dismissal.


To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases
  • Barke v SEETEC Business Technology Centre Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 16 Mayo 2005
    ...by the Employment Appeal Tribunal since 2002 which has been most fully explained by the President (Burton J) in Burns v Royal Mail Group [2004] ICR 1103 ("the Burns procedure") (this decision is also reported as Burns v Consignia (No.2) [2004] IRLR 425 ). This procedure has since been ......
  • Vk and Norfolk County Council and The Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 17 Diciembre 2004
    ...in any event. 77 The practice signalled in English has been adopted by the EAT and found beneficial: see, e.g., Burns v Consignia plc [2004] IRLR 425 at paragraphs 10 and 15. However, the context of the EAT also differs from the present. In that context, there is no statutory requirement th......
  • Korashi v Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 1 Marzo 2011
    ...developed in relation to appeals to the EAT. It has become known as the Burns/Barke procedure, following Burns v Royal Mail Group [2004] ICR 1103 and Barke v SEETEC Business Technology Centre [2005] ICR 1373. It is mentioned in the EAT Practice Direction 2008, which refers to "an invitation......
  • Abercrombie and Others v AGA Rangemaster Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Employment Appeal Tribunal
    • Invalid date
    ...... ER 1640 , HL(E) Dixon v British Broadcasting Corpn [ 1979 ] ICR 281 ;[ 1979 ]QB 546 ;[ 1979 ] 2 WLR 647 ;[ 1979 ] 2 All ER 112 ,C A Dobie v Burns International Security Services (UK) Ltd [ 1984 ] ICR 812 ;[ 1985 ] 1 WLR 43 ;[ 1984 ] 3 All ER 333 ,C A Friend v PMA Holdings Ltd [ 1976 ] ICR ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT