Employment Appeal Tribunal Dismisses Lawyer's Appeal Over Lack of Arguable Errors of Law
An Employment Appeal Tribunal has dismissed a lawyer's appeal, finding no arguable errors of law in the original judgment.
• public
Key Issues and Decision
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has dismissed an appeal brought by a specialist employment solicitor, Noel Deans, against RBL Law Ltd and others. The tribunal found that the proposed amended grounds of appeal did not raise arguable errors of law, a critical requirement for appeals to proceed. The EAT emphasised the importance of adhering to its rules for submitting grounds of appeal and the criteria for seeking amendments.
Background of the Case
Mr Deans, a Black employment solicitor, joined RBL Law Ltd in May 2017. His claims included allegations of race discrimination, harassment, and detriment related to protected disclosures. The original Employment Tribunal dismissed most of his claims on their merits, with the race-related harassment complaint regarding a comment made by the then CEO, Nicola Foulston, being found out of time.
The Appeal and Amendments
Mr Deans lodged an appeal, and subsequently sought permission to amend his grounds of appeal. The EAT considered whether these amendments raised arguable points of law. The tribunal noted that the appeal was against RBL Law Ltd (in liquidation) and three individuals, including Ms Foulston and the firm's founder, Ian Rosenblatt. The parties agreed that the appeal against the liquidated firm would be withdrawn, allowing the appeal against the remaining respondents to proceed if arguable.
Tribunal's Reasoning
His Honour Judge James Tayler, delivering the judgment, meticulously reviewed each of the proposed amended grounds of appeal. The tribunal found that several grounds, including those concerning protected disclosures and detriment complaints, were essentially attempts to re-argue factual findings from the original tribunal, rather than demonstrating clear errors of law. For instance, regarding the protected disclosure claim, the Employment Tribunal's finding that Mr Deans did not genuinely believe wrongdoing was occurring was deemed a factual conclusion not amenable to appeal as an error of law.
Specifically, the tribunal refused permission to amend Ground 2, which related to harassment allegations. The judge noted that the claimant had not provided a clear explanation for the delay in raising this ground and had previously chosen not to challenge the dismissal of this complaint. The judge also highlighted that even if the amendment were permitted, the core issue of the harassment complaint being out of time would likely still prevent it from proceeding.
The EAT stressed that appeals must focus on arguable errors of law, not disputes over factual findings. The judgment referenced the EAT's Practice Direction, which requires grounds of appeal to be concise, clearly identify errors of law, and not simply criticise the tribunal's decision-making process without a legal basis. The tribunal concluded that the amended grounds failed to meet these requirements, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Read the entire judgment here: Deans v RBL Law Ltd and others EAT 76
