28th May, 2012

Matthew Snarr succeeds in the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

Dr Adeyemi v United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust [2012] EAT

Matthew Snarr successfully represented the Respondent, the United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust in the Employment Appeal Tribunal on 28th May 2012.

Mr Recorder Luba QC, sitting as a judge alone in the EAT, held that the Appellant, Dr Adeyemi, was not entitled to an extension of time to bring an appeal lodged 8 days out of time.

The EAT held:

1. No appeal against the Registrar's decision that the appeal itself was out time had been made. Accordingly the appeal failed on this preliminary point pursuant to paragraph 3.6 of the EAT Practice Direction 2008.

2. The Appellant had been seeking a review of the Employment Tribunal's decision initially instead of an appeal. She was aware there was a difference between the two. This was an exceptionally high risk strategy. The Employment Tribunal advised her that her review was an appeal at an early stage.

3. The Appellant gave evidence before the EAT but such were the inconsistencies in the Appellant's evidence and by the manner in which she gave her evidence the EAT could not be satisfied of the veracity of the evidence.

4. Even if the EAT accepted her evidence, the case was not one which could be considered as constituting a good excuse or exceptional within the test as set out in United Arab Emirates v Abdelghafar.

A full written judgment will follow.

 



Latest News...

Three Nominations for Chambers Legal 500 Bar Awards

11th July, 2024
We are delighted to announce that 9 St John Street Chambers has been shortlisted in three categories for the Legal 500 Bar Awards 2024.

9 St John Street Family Team Summer Newsletter

10th July, 2024
The 9 St John Street Family Team Summer Newsletter is now available.

Chambers performs a mock trial for FOIL and their members

4th July, 2024
Barristers Elizabeth Murray, Leanne Jones, Fiona Wise, Jamie HIll, Beth Caunce and Emily Bonass perform a mock trial in an Occupiers Liability claim, which highlights exaggerated injuries and ultimately a finding of Fundamental Dishonesty.