Ms N Leeks v Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
Judge | Judge Hand |
Neutral Citation | UKEAT/0050/16/DA |
Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
Date | 27 February 2018 |
Published date | 27 February 2018 |
Copyright 2018
Appeal No. UKEAT/0050/16/DA
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
FLEETBANK HOUSE, 2-6 SALISBURY SQUARE, LONDON EC4Y 8AE
At the Tribunal
On 25 January 2017
Judgment handed down on 27 February 2018
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE HAND QC
(SITTING ALONE)
MS N LEEKS APPELLANT
NORFOLK & NORWICH UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL
NHS FOUNDATION TRUST RESPONDENT
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
UKEAT/0050/16/DA
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant MR DECLAN O’DEMPSEY
(of Counsel)
Direct Public Access
For the Respondent MS CLARE HARRINGTON
(of Counsel)
Instructed by:
Messrs Birketts LLP
Kingfisher House
Gliders Way
Off Barrack Street
Norwich
NR3 1UB
UKEAT/0050/16/DA
SUMMARY
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Case management
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke
The argument that in cases involving a disabled person where an ET had failed to make a
reasonable adjustment by extending the time for complying with a procedural (case
management) Order or postponing or adjourning a hearing fell to be considered by the EAT
making its own decision as to what was proportionate, fair and just and not by a conventional
appellate scrutiny as to whether there was an error of law was rejected. This was not the
inevitable consequence of the judgment of the Supreme Court in R (Osborn) v Parole Board
[2013] UKSC 61, [2014] 1 AC 1115 as argued in an article by Ms Claire Darwin of counsel
starting at page 423 of the Industrial Law Journal 2016 and accepted (obiter dictum) by the
EAT in Rackham v NHS Professionals Ltd UKEAT/0110/15/LA and by the Court of Appeal
in Northern Ireland in the case of Galo v Bombardier Aerospace UK [2016] NICA 25.
In the civil jurisdiction the need to take account of fundamental rights has been recognised as
part of the exercise of a judicial discretion as to whether or not a case should be adjourned or a
judgment set aside (see Bank of Scotland plc v Pereira [2011] 1 WLR 2391, Levy v Ellis-
Carr [2012] EWHC 63 Ch, Decker v Hopcraft [2015] EWHC 1170 QB, Governor and
Company of the Bank of Ireland v Jaffery [2012] EWHC 734, Forrester Ketley v Brent
[2012] EWCA Civ 324, TBO Investments Ltd v Mohun-Smith and Another [2016] EWCA
Civ 403, [2016] 1 WLR 2919 and Emojevbe v Secretary of State for Transport [2017]
EWCA Civ 934); likewise in the jurisdiction of the ET (see Teinaz v London Borough of
Wandsworth [2002] EWCA Civ 1040, [2002] ICR 1471).
To continue reading
Request your trial