Ms Y Ameyaw v PricewaterhouseCoopersServices Limited
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Mathew Gullick Deputy Judge |
| Subject Matter | Not landmark |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Published date | 03 November 2021 |
Judgment approved by the court Ameyaw v Pricewaterhousecoopers
Page 1 EA-2019-000480-LA
© EAT 2021 EA-2019-000503-LA
Case No: EA-2019-000480-LA (previously UKEAT/0291/19/LA)
EA-2019-000503-LA (Previously UKEAT/0298/19/LA)
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Rolls Building
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
Date: 3 November 2021
Before :
MATHEW GULLICK QC
DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
MS Y AMEYAW Appellant
- and -
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS SERVICES LTD Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr A. Khan and Mr A. Rozycki (instructed by Dylan Konrad Creolle Solicitors) for the Appellant
Ms C. Darwin (instructed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP) for the Respondent
Hearing dates: 9 & 10 February 2021
Further written submissions: 4 & 11 March; 22 September; 5 & 6 October 2021
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
Judgment approved by the court Ameyaw v Pricewaterhousecoopers
Page 2 EA-2019-000480-LA
© EAT 2021 EA-2019-000503-LA
SUMMARY
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE; VICTIMISATION; UNFAIR DISMISSAL
The claimant’s appeals against two decisions of the Employment Tribunal, made in different
proceedings brought against the respondent, were heard together.
In the first appeal, the claimant challenged the Employment Tribunal’s refusal to reconsider its earlier
judgment dismissing the respondent’s application to strike out three claims brought by the claimant.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that there had been a procedural irregularity in the way in
which the Employment Tribunal had dealt with the reconsideration application, but that it was not
material to the outcome because the claimant (who had successfully resisted the application to strike
out her claims) was seeking changes to the Employment Tribunal’s reasons for refusing the
respondent’s application, rather than a change in the result. Applying AB v The Home Office
UKEAT/0363/13/JOJ, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the application for reconsideration
was not one permitted by the relevant provisions of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
2013. The appeal against the Employment Tribunal’s refusal to reconsider was dismissed.
In the second appeal, the claimant challenged the Employment Tribunal’s decision to dismiss a fourth
claim brought against the respondent after a full merits hearing.
The claimant contended that the tribunal which heard the fourth claim had erred in law in refusing an
application to adjourn the hearing on medical grounds because there were not “exceptional
circumstances” as required under rule 30A of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the tribunal had not erred in law in concluding that there
were not “exceptional circumstances” and so refusing the application to adjourn, Morton v Eastleigh
Citizens’ Advice Bureau [2020] EWCA Civ 638 considered and applied.
Judgment approved by the court Ameyaw v Pricewaterhousecoopers
Page 3 EA-2019-000480-LA
© EAT 2021 EA-2019-000503-LA
The claimant challenged various elements of the tribunal’s decision to dismiss her fourth claim on
the merits as being perverse or otherwise failing to take into account relevant matters. The
Employment Appeal Tribunal rejected the claimant’s arguments, holding that the tribunal’s decision
was open to it and none of the alleged errors of law had been established.
The claimant also appealed the Employment Tribunal’s decision to refuse her application for an order
under rule 50 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. The Employment Appeal
Tribunal held that there was no error of law in the decision to refuse the rule 50 application and that
the Employment Tribunal had correctly held that the claimant’s Article 8 rights were not engaged
where the matter in issue was her conduct at a preliminary hearing in the Employment Tribunal which
had been held “in private”.
To continue reading
Request your trial