Come on overstress. Maybe just a touch over-sensitive there.
With respect, it's not correct that BALPA brought the case.
Mrs Starmer chose to take BA to the Employment Tribunal.
She brought the case.
BALPA supported her, and according to previous posts, financed her claim, but that's a different matter.
______________________
For those interested in the next stage:
BA applied to the Employment Appeal Tribunal for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
The EAT refused to give leave to appeal its decision. Nothing significant in that. SOP.
BA was given 56 days in which to apply direct to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal. That's a longer period than usual, but takes into account that the Court of Appeal doesn't sit in August and September.
So BA has 56 days (49 remaining) to decide whether to apply for leave to appeal.
There's no automatic right to have an appeal heard by the Court of Appeal. Unless BA can show there are grounds for arguing that the EAT made a mistake of law, the Court of Appeal will not give leave to appeal.
Neither the first appeal (to the EAT) nor the appeal from the EAT to the Court of Appeal (if it goes ahead) is a fresh hearing of the claim. No evidence is heard. It's a 'review' of the previous decision.
Provided (1) the previous tribunal made didn't make a mistake of law and (2) the decision wasn't perverse on the facts, the previous decision is upheld.
In ordinary language, it's much more difficult to get a decision overturned on appeal than it is to win at the first hearing.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 27th Jul 2005 at 08:27.