header-logo header-logo

Employment

13 November 2009
Issue: 7393 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Tariq v Home Office [2009] All ER (D) 100 (Nov)

The procedure sanctioned by r 54 of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/1861), was not incompatible with the employee’s right under Art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights to a fair hearing, or his right under Community law to an effective judicial remedy.

Whether the withholding of materials from a claimant pursuant to r 54 would render the hearing unfair would depend on the nature of the open and closed materials in the light of the allegations being made.

Article 6 required that the employee be provided with the allegations being made against him in sufficient detail to enable him to give instructions to his legal team so that those allegations could be challenged effectively.
 
 

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll