Miss H Hassan v British Broadcasting Corporation
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Mrs Justice Eady |
| Subject Matter | Not landmark |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Published date | 04 April 2023 |
Judgment approved by the court for handing down: HASSAN v BBC EA-2022-000283-BA
© EAT 2023 Page 1 [2023] EAT 48
Neutral Citation Number: [2023] EAT 48
Case No: EA-2022-000283-BA
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Rolls Building
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
Date: 4 April 2023
Before :
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE EADY DBE, PRESIDENT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
MS H HASSAN Appellant
- and –
BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Iris Ferber (instructed on a direct access basis) for the Appellant
Nathan Roberts (instructed by BBC Legal) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 8 February 2023
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
This judgment was handed down by the Judge remotely by circulation to the parties'
representatives by email and release to The National Archives.
The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 10:30 on 4 April 2023
Judgment approved by the court for handing down: HASSAN v BBC EA-2022-000283-BA
© EAT 2023 Page 2 [2023] EAT 48
SUMMARY
Practice and procedure – list of issues
The claimant argued that, in drawing up the list of issues, the ET had wrongly cut down her pleaded
case.
Held: dismissing the appeal
The ET did not err in drawing up the list of issues. The matters that the claimant said had been
wrongly omitted could not be said to have “shouted out” from her pleaded case. Moreover, to have
allowed such additional claims to be added to the list of issues would have been inconsistent with the
way the case had been understood at crucial earlier points in the case management of the proceedings
(in particular, when allowing an extension of time, and when considering an application to amend).
That would have undermined the earlier case management of this matter and would have been unfair
to the respondent.
To continue reading
Request your trial