Sweeney v Merseyside Community Rehabilitation Company Ltd UKEAT/0277/17/JOJ
Appeal against the ET’s refusal of the Claimant’s application to admit a document into evidence. Appeal dismissed.
The Claimant, who is registered blind, was employed by the Respondent as a probation officer. After a period of sickness absence, she resigned and brought various claims in the ET, including for unfair constructive dismissal, contending in particular that her caseload had been excessive in the 11-week period before her final sickness absence. In the course of her oral closing submissions, the Claimant referred to her caseload, and to a document relating to it; the ET, in dismissing her claim, refused to admit the document on the basis that, even though it indicated the number of cases that the Claimant had at a particular time, it would not have shown how much work needed to be done on them. On the Claimant's appeal against the ET's refusal, the appeal was stayed so that she could make an application for reconsideration; accordingly, the reconsideration hearing took place and the ET reached the same conclusion, having considered the caseload document. The stay on the appeal was lifted, and the Claimant appealed against the ET's refusal to permit her to introduce the caseload document into evidence, and the ET's failure to consider its contents.
The EAT held that the ET had erred by not admitting the caseload document into evidence and, if the ET had not done so, the EAT would have remitted the matter to the same ET. Given that the ET had already carried out that task at the reconsideration hearing and in the decisions flowing from it, the proper course was to dismiss the appeal.
Published: 27/04/2020 12:49