1/ Francis v Ford: An EAT decision about whether to admit background evidence is a case management decision & hence subject to limited review on appeal. A deposit order re extension of EqA time limits shouldn't be made without evidence. assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/61c303b1…
#ukemplaw
#ukemplaw
2/ The case concerned various race discrim allegations from 2019-2020, in respect of which the C sought also to rely on historic matters from 2009-2018 as background material to establish a culture of racism. At a CMH, the ET ordered the background matters be omitted.
3/ The ET's reasons focused on relevance & their historic nature & hence overriding objective matters relating to the length of trial & difficulties for the R in preparing evidence for trial on such historic matters.
4/ In upholding the ET's decision, the EAT noted it's appropriate for an ET to consider at a PH the question of what background material can be raised in evidence at trial & that review on appeal is limited as it's a matter principally for the EJ's discretion. 
5/ Hence review on appeal is limited to legal errors, taking account of irrelevant considerations/failing to take account of relevant ones and Wednesbury unreasonableness. In this case the EJ's decision was an appropriate one & fell within the principles in HSBC v Gillespie.
6/ On a separate issue, the EJ had erred in making a deposit order reliant, in part, on little prospect of successfully persuading an ET it was just & equitable to extend time. No evidence had been led on this question & hence there was no basis to find the threshold breached.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
