• Robert Spicer


Case management decision

Access to documents

Case Kular v Atos IT Services UK Ltd (2021) UKEAT 0101/20/2901, Employment Appeal Tribunal

Facts K claimed that a costs hearing was procedurally unfair. Until the day of the hearing he had only received an electronic version of the hearing bundle. He had not been able to access this. He was a litigant in person and had not enough time to prepare for the hearing. The employer argued that the hearing had been postponed twice as a result of applications by K which were not on the basis that he could not access the documents. The tribunal decided to proceed with the hearing. K appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

Decision 1. The appeal was dismissed.

2. An appellate court could only interfere with a case management decision where an employment judge had misdirected themselves, failed to take account of relevant factors or taken irrelevant factors into account.

3. This was not the case here. The tribunal’s decision did not infringe the principle of equality of arms or the relevant aspect of the overriding objective.

Recent Posts

See All

DoNotPay and popular facial recognition tools

Legal tech company DoNotPay is best known for its army of “robot lawyers” — automated bots that tackle boringonline tasks like canceling TV subscriptions and requesting refunds from parking meters. No

Employment tribunals procedure: new case

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS ET1 Form Amendment Case Marrufo v Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole Council [2020] UKEAT 0103/20/0312, Employment Appeal Tribunal Facts M lodged a grievance which alleged bullyin