Thread by @JasonBraier

1/ Ameyaw v PWC has returned to the EAT yet again (I think it's the 5th time), returning empty-handed once again. This time it was 2 appeals combined (so perhaps the 5th & 6th times) & primarily concerned a reconsideration, adjournment & r.50.
bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT…
#ukemplaw

2/ As you may know, A was a senior manager at PWC. She brought a number of discrim/victimisation/harassment claims. At a PH in early 2017, A and her mother behaved appallingly, leading to a subsequent application to strike out A's 1st 3 claims under both ET r.37(1)(b)&(e).

3/ That application was dismissed, the EJ finding a fair trial was still possible. The EJ hearing the strike out application took the events at the previous PH from the previous EJ's judgment, refusing to allow A to adduce witness evidence in dispute.

4/ Ultimately at a merits hearing A's 1st 3 claims were all dismissed, & an appeal to the EAT was unsuccessful. A then asked that the EJ's judgment refusing strike out be taken down from the Internet due to it causing her damage. The ET refused.

5/ A r.50 application was then made seeking prohibition of publication of A's name online. That was refused & an appeal failed. A then applied for reconsideration of the strike out EJ's judgment, nearly 2 years after it was given. It's somewhat unusual to apply to review a win!

6/ A wanted the EJ to reconsider on the strength of contemporaneous notes she said showed she didn't act in the way the 1st EJ had recorded, to which the strike out EJ had referred. The ET 1st wrote to say a hearing would be needed, but then wrote without one to refuse to review.

7/ After A's behaviour at the 1st PH, PWC suspended her. A brought a 4th claim alleging harassment & PID detriment in relation to that process. Subsequently A was summarily dismissed after disciplinary process she didn't attend. 1 allegation related to her behaviour at the PH.

8/ A amended the 4th claim to add in that the dismissal was discrim & unfair. At the merits hearing of the 4th claim, A was represented for a while by (the infamous) Leonard Ogilvy. A lost her voice & sought to adjourn. There was ultimately adjournment for her to get medical ev.

9/ A produced evidence from her GP of laryngitis & the need to rest for a week. She sought to rely on the exceptional circumstances factor under ET r.30A(3)(c) in making a written application. That was refused & an email was sent saying the hearing would recommence that afternoon

10/ A declined to attend. Evidence was heard in A's absence. She was given the opportunity to attend for closing or to make written submissions but declined. Her claim was dismissed with written reasons. A r.50 application was also refused.

11/ In refusing the r.50 application, the EJ noted the open justice principle & A's lack of explanation why revealing her identity/disclosing the decisions would interfere with her A6 or A8 rights. Even if engaged, the balance was in favour of open justice here.

12/ The ET judgment also set out some of the history re the refusal to adjourn, noting Mr Ogilvy withdrew from the case on PWC sending A an email noting Mr Ogilvy's criminal conviction for impersonating a barrister. The ET considered A was better than him at representing herself!

13/ In re the adjournment application, PWC overnight provided tech to enable A to type her questions & for them to project simultaneously on a wall. The ET considered that meant A could participate in the hearing irrespective of lack of voice.

14/ A brought wide-ranging appeals. This thread looks at those relating to the refusal to review the strike out decision, the refusal to adjourn & the R.50 decision.

15/ As regards review, the EAT considered there was a procedural irregularity in sending (in error as it turns out) a letter notifying that a hearing would be required & then deciding the application without a hearing.

16/ However, this was not a material error given that the application by A wasn't seeking to challenge the result but merely part of the reasoning. Reconsideration is to be refused if no reasonable prospect of the order being varied or revoked. Here A wasn't even seeking that.

17/ Re the adjournment application, the EAT considered the exceptional circumstances test to be a high bar. This was a case management decision, & one the ET had been entitled to take in the context, including that A was fit to attend & a solution re participation had been found.

18/ On the r.50 application, the EAT found that the material relied on to say Art 8 was engaged was, unusually, all concerned with what took place in the PH itself. A 'private' hearing doesn't equate to a person's Art 8 'private life' - the 2 shouldn't be conflated.

19/ It's foreseeable to a party who misconducts themselves at a private hearing that that conduct will find itself described in a tribunal decision. Even if Art 8 was engaged, the ET had reached an appropriate decision on the balance.

20/ Importantly, there's no proposition established that it's impermissible for a court or tribunal to refer in a public judgment to conduct occurring at an earlier private hearing.

21/ The EAT went on to consider further grounds of appeal related to perversity & failure to take account of relevant considerations, but there's nothing in them to excite the reader, so they aren't dealt with further in this thread.

22/ So Ms Ameyaw loses once more, in spite of the excellent efforts by @42BR_Employment colleague Arfan Khan. Save for a further appeal, this finally appears to be the end of the road for Mrs Ameyaw in this litigation...doesn't it?! #ukemplaw