Ministry of Defence v Mrs V Dixon
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Eady |
| Neutral Citation | UKEAT/0050/17/DM |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Practice,Procedure,Unfair Dismissal,Procedure - Amendment,Procedure - Appellate jurisdiction/Reasons/Burns-Barke,Procedure - Application/Claim,Unfair Dismissal - Dismissal/ambiguous resignation,Not landmark |
| Date | 04 October 2017 |
| Published date | 04 October 2017 |
Copyright 2017
Appeal No. UKEAT/0050/17/DM
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
FLEETBANK HOUSE, 2-6 SALISBURY SQUARE, LONDON EC4Y 8AE
At the Tribunal
On 3 July 2017
Judgment handed down on 4 October 2017
Before
HER HONOUR JUDGE EADY QC
(SITTING ALONE)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE APPELLANT
MRS V DIXON RESPONDENT
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
UKEAT/0050/17/DM
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant MR GEORGE ROWELL
(of Counsel)
Instructed by:
Government Legal Department
One Kemble Street
London
WC2B 4TS
For the Respondent MR HENRY DIXON
(The Respondent’s husband)
UKEAT/0050/17/DM
SUMMARY
UNFAIR DISMISSAL
UNFAIR DISMISSAL - Dismissal/ambiguous resignation
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Application/claim
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Amendment
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke
Unfair dismissal - dismissal - fixed-term employee
Practice and procedure - claim - application to amend - whether raised below - appellate
jurisdiction
The Claimant, not legally trained and acting in person (assisted by her husband, also not legally
trained), lodged a claim with the Employment Tribunal (“the ET”) before the termination of her
employment with the Respondent; that claim (“the first ET1”) related to her status as a fixed-
term worker. By the time of the initial case management Preliminary Hearing (“PH”), the
Claimant had been dismissed and she therefore sought to apply to amend her claim to include a
complaint of unfair dismissal - indicating her intention to make that application when
completing the ET’s pro forma case management document, which she sent to the Respondent’s
solicitors and to the ET. The Respondent’s solicitor did not complete a separate pro forma
document but provided a draft list of issues, which he stated included the matters raised by the
Claimant. The unfair dismissal claim was included in the draft list. At the case management
PH, the Claimant was not asked about her application to amend but the Respondent’s solicitor
confirmed that it understood that the claim included a complaint of unfair dismissal. Although
asking for further particulars regarding another aspect of the claim, the Respondent did not seek
further information about the unfair dismissal complaint. Subsequent to the case management
PH, the Claimant sought to lodge a another ET1 (“the second ET1”), this time ticking the box
To continue reading
Request your trial