Christian Abanda Bella v 1) Barclays Execution Services Ltd 2) GÖTZ Rienacker 3) Jeong Kim 4) Jeremy Haworth 5) Octavia Knox Cartwright 6) Chris Easdon
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Carr |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Published date | 23 February 2024 |
Judgment approved by the court for handing down Abanda Bella v Barclays Execution Services
© EAT 2024 Page 1 [2024] EAT 16
Neutral Citation Number: [2024] EAT 16 Case No: EA-2022-000735-NLD
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Rolls Building
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
Date: 23 February 2024
Before:
BRUCE CARR KC, DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
CHRISTIAN ABANDA BELLA
Appellant
- and -
(1) BARCLAYS EXECUTION SERVICES LIMITED
(2) GÖTZ RIENACKER
(3) JEONG KIM
(4) JEREMY HAWORTH
(5) OCTAVIA KNOX CARTWRIGHT
(6) CHRIS EASDON
Respondents
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr William Young for the Appellant
Mr Gordon Bartlett for the First to Sixth Respondent
Hearing date: 11 January 2024
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
Judgment approved by the court for handing down Abanda Bella v Barclays Execution Services
© EAT 2024 Page 2 [2024] EAT 16
SUMMARY
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Recording of Tribunal proceedings
The Claimant/Appellant applied to the Employment Tribunal to be allowed to record a 3-day
preliminary hearing. The Employment Judge declined to grant the application as he was not
satisfied with the evidence in support or that there was any significant disadvantage to the
Appellant.
In reaching his decision, the Judge did not refer to the guidance provided on this question in
Heal v University of Oxford [2020] ICR 1294. Although the guidance in Heal is not
mandatory, is in important in considering an application to record proceedings and by not
referring to it, the Judge then failed to take into account factors material to the assessment of
the Appellant’s application.
The Judge should therefore have granted the application and it was right to make a declaration
that the decision not to do so was unlawful.
The Appellant did not seek any additional remedy beyond the bare declaration
To continue reading
Request your trial