header-logo header-logo

No second bite of the cherry, EAT rules

04 October 2007
Issue: 7291 / Categories: Legal News , Tribunals , Employment
printer mail-detail

News

Employment tribunal parties can not introduce fresh evidence as a ground for appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has confirmed.
In Hygia Professional Training v Cutter an employee was sacked for trying to poach customers while still employed. At the original tribunal hearing, the employer put forward no firm evidence of the poaching, claiming it was not aware it had to do so.

After its case was dismissed, the employer obtained four witness statements which, if accepted, would be quite compelling evidence that the ex-employee had been approaching clients to solicit work while still employed.

The EAT, however, ruled that this did not mean the employer could have a second bite at the cherry even if the new evidence was both credible and relevant: the employer should have produced the evidence at the initial hearing and neither ignorance nor possibly incompetent advice from the employer’s employment consultants changed this.

Jeremy Nixon, a consultant in the employment team at Bird & Bird, says the EAT’s judgment in this case is unlikely to surprise many employment lawyers.

“As the EAT made clear, there are significant public policy factors which support the principle that cases should, subject to the right to appeal on specific points, be heard only once. The case highlights the fact that parties and their advisers must ensure that all relevant evidence is placed before the tribunal at the initial hearing as they cannot rely on having a ‘second bite at the cherry’. As with many things, preparation for tribunal hearings is the key to success.”

Issue: 7291 / Categories: Legal News , Tribunals , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Private client division announces five new partners

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Banking and finance team welcomes partner in London

NEWS
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
Lord Sales has been appointed to become the Deputy President of the Supreme Court after Lord Hodge retires at the end of the year
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
back-to-top-scroll