This quite remarkable case highlights yet another danger of the digital age, as well as the adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

The original tribunal claim was one of disability discrimination by a litigant in person. That is not unusual. What is unusual is that the tribunal took it upon itself to research the subject on Wikipedia and other websites during the recess and then asked questions about issues which had not been raised by either party. The tribunal even issued print outs from websites to the parties to aid their enquiries. The tribunal then refused to recuse itself and got short shrift from the EAT when asked to explain itself. It seems that the tribunal may have been trying to... "make a case for the Claimant because it felt that the Claimant was not best able to do it for herself."

That, of course, is not the job of a tribunal, notwithstanding the need for it to level the playing field in some cases. The EAT commented:

"No real conflict should be caused by being sensitive to ensure that vulnerable witnesses and lay witnesses, just as much as more sophisticated or professional witnesses, are treated with proper sensitivity before a Tribunal and are assisted by the Tribunal, both by its own questions and by controlling the questions asked by the other party, to give the best evidence that they would wish to give in support of their case. There is no conflict between that and the accusatorial system. It nonetheless requires a degree of care by a Tribunal. In assisting one party, it should be cautious not to cross the line between impartiality (which it must maintain) and acting as an advocate (which it must never do)."
http://bit.ly/1qzDoHo