• Claimant: A    

• Respondent/Appellant on Appeal: B (Trading as C)

  Appeal dismissed as no error of law found. Appeal was largely based upon factual determinations by the Tribunal and the Court of Appeal does not conduct a rehearing.

The claimant argued successfully at the Tribunal that she had been subject to sexual harassment and discrimination by the respondent. The respondent was the appellant to these proceedings – both the individual and the company were found to be liable at first instance. At first instance, the Tribunal noted that it was ‘one person’s evidence against another’s evidence, the evidence of the first named respondent against the evidence of the claimant’. There was no corroborating evidence of the accusations made by the claimant.  The respondent appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal. The appeal was based upon the fact that there was no prosecution by the PPS, no evidence or no witnesses to the alleged action. 

The first matter was the notice of appeal which was four months out of time. The Court of Appeal does have the facility to extend time where flexibility must be applied to the exercise of the discretion taking into account the context of the case.  To this end, the Court took into account the fact the appellant was a litigant in person and that there was no real adverse effect to the respondent in the late appeal. The primary reason for extending time, however, was the fact that it was a split hearing before the Tribunal and the appellant had satisfied the Court that there was some confusion when the notice of appeal was required. 

On the substance, the Court reminded itself of the legislative basis for appeal from the Tribunal.  This notes that the starting point is a need for a point of law to form the basis of any appeal. The Court of Appeal does not conduct a rehearing of the matter.  As a result, the Court of Appeal held that the Tribunal had decided the case on its own facts and assessing the evidence of both parties. The Tribunal had directed itself correctly on assessing credibility. The appeal was found to be ‘feeble’ and without merit and therefore was dismissed. 

This decision serves as a healthy reminder that appeals to the Court of Appeal from the Industrial Tribunal must be based upon an error of law. To this end, the appellant essentially sought a rehearing which is not permitted within the confines of the statute. Accordingly, with no error of law, it was dismissed. The case also gives a reminder of the need for the notice of appeal to be in time but that time can be extended. The Court acknowledged that with split hearings it could lead to confusion, especially for a personal litigant, of when time began and when the notice was required. The Court, however, stated that it would be for another time to determine the time limits when there is a split between liability and remedy hearings.      

https://www.judiciaryni.uk/files/judiciaryni/2025-01/%5B2025%5D%20NICA%202Final%20-%20Approved.pdf