Employment Appeal Tribunal Upholds Barrister's Appeal, Citing Apparent Bias
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has found apparent bias in an Employment Judge's conduct, allowing a barrister's appeal.
• public
Employment Appeal Tribunal Upholds Barrister's Appeal, Citing Apparent Bias
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled in favour of a practising barrister, Mr Daniel Matovu, upholding his appeal on grounds of apparent bias by an Employment Judge. The decision, delivered by His Honour Judge Bruce Carr KC, found that the Employment Judge's conduct during a preliminary hearing demonstrated a real possibility of bias, thus undermining the fairness of the proceedings.
Mr Matovu's appeal centred on the Employment Judge's handling of several case management applications. These included two applications to amend his Particulars of Claim and a request for further information (RFI). The EAT determined that the Employment Judge wrongly exercised his discretion in rejecting two of Mr Matovu's applications. Specifically, the refusal to allow an amendment to paragraph 32 of the Particulars of Claim and the rejection of the RFI were found to be based on reasoning not advanced by the respondents and, in some instances, contrary to the judge's own observations during the hearing.
Crucially, the EAT highlighted that the Employment Judge appeared to introduce arguments and concerns that were not raised by the respondents' counsel. This included assumptions about broadening the scope of the factual inquiry and the potential need for further witnesses, despite the respondents' legal team not making such points. The tribunal noted that this conduct, combined with the judge's questioning and criticism of Mr Matovu on unopposed matters and the determination of contested issues on unargued bases, led to a cumulative effect that justified a conclusion of apparent bias.
The EAT allowed the appeal on both Ground 1 (perversity in case management decisions) and Ground 2 (improper conduct and apparent bias). Consequently, the Employment Judge is to be removed from Mr Matovu's case, with the order to remain in place for the duration of the proceedings in the Employment Tribunal.
Read the entire judgment here: Mr Daniel Matovu v The Chambers of Mr Martin Porter KC & Ors EAT 36
