The 1993 EAT Rules have been amended ahead of the introduction of the new fee regime for employment tribunals
Is this email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.

Amendments to the EAT Rules

Thanks to Claire Darwin of Matrix Chambers for preparing this case summary.
The 1993 EAT Rules have been amended in the Employment Appeal Tribunal (Amendment) Rules 2013, ahead of the introduction of the government's new fee regime for enforcing employment rights. The amendments come into force on the same day - 29th July 2013.

There are 4 key changes and 1 key omission:

1. The removal of the right (pursuant to rule 3(8) of the old EAT rules) to submit a fresh Notice of Appeal within 28 days of the original Notice of Appeal being rejected by an EAT Judge (at the 'sift stage') on the grounds that the appeal does not have reasonable prospects of success.

2. The end of the automatic entitlement to an oral hearing (a so-called 'rule 3(10) hearing') after the sift stage, if the Appellant wishes to challenge the assessment of an EAT Judge that the Notice of Appeal discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the appeal. Now if an EAT Judge considers that an appeal is "totally without merit" he can order that a party is "not entitled to have the matter heard before a Judge" at a rule 3(10) hearing.

3. A similar amendment in respect of cross-appeals, again if an EAT Judge considers that the statement of grounds of cross-appeal is "totally without merit".

Given that the law reports are full of appeal cases which, although ultimately successful, were initially rejected at the sift stage by an EAT Judge, the above three amendments are deeply troubling.

4. A new mechanism for challenging a decision by a Registrar to strike out your appeal on the basis that you haven't paid your EAT fee, when in fact you have paid it but the new "centralised processing facility" hasn't informed the EAT that you've paid it, or has lost your file etc. Appellants will be able to apply endlessly (there is no time bar or restriction on the number of times you can apply) to a Registrar to have their appeal reinstated pursuant to the new rule 17A(2).

5. However, whilst the new rule 34A(2A) provides that the EAT can order a Respondent to a successful appeal to reimburse the Appellant in respect of the EAT fees, the rules do not provide for a situation in which it is not the parties fault that they are in the EAT, but the fault of the Employment Tribunals Service because the parties had a dud Employment Tribunal. In these cases, the parties will simply have to try and recover their wasted costs and fees directly from the Ministry of Justice.

Presumably the EAT will amend the 2008 Practice Direction in the near future, so that it is consistent with the amended Rules.

Click here to access a searchable archive of these bulletins
Case summaries are written by a panel of about 40 specialist employment lawyers. Click here to see who they are.
Daniel Barnett is a barrister with 20 years’ experience litigating and advising in employment, HR and associated litigation. He is primarily a litigator, described in legal directories as “tenacious”, “inexhaustible” and “an excellent advocate” (see testimonials). He has been instructed by a Royal Family, international airlines, various FTSE-250 companies, local authorities, NHS Trusts, as well as a myriad of SMEs. Employee clients range from senior executives of quoted companies through to David & Victoria Beckham’s nanny. His specific areas of interest are post-termination restrictive covenants, age discrimination and retirement issues, industrial law (strikes), employment agencies and permanent health insurance disputes. He practises from Outer Temple Chambers, a highly regarded set of Chambers in London.
Outer Temple Chambers’ employment and discrimination team is an important player in the field. We have acknowledged expertise representing both employer and employee, covering all aspects of collective and individual employment law, including High Court breach of contract and injunction proceedings, and all aspects of individual and collective employment rights.

We appear regularly in the civil courts and tribunals, before the Central Arbitration Committee, all appellate courts, and in mediations. Members of our team also accept instructions to act as external decision-makers, and to advise public and private sector employers and service-providers.

Major test-cases in which members of the team appeared in 2010 include British Airways v Williams [2010] UKSC 16, which will determine the holiday pay of thousands of individuals across the aviation industry; Sagoo & ors v Birmingham City Council, believed to be the largest of the vast multi-claimant local authority equal pay cases; and USA v Nolan [2010] EWCA Civ 1223, which will affect the consultation rights of workers across Europe in relation to redundancy.

Members of Chambers who advise and represent in employment law disputes, listed in order of call (experience), are:-

  • Richard Lissack QC
  • Gerard McDermott QC
  • Andrew Short QC
  • Keith Bryant QC
  • Mark Mullins
  • Natasha Joffe
  • Daniel Barnett
  • Naomi Cunningham
  • Andrew Allen
  • Benjimin Burgher
  • Lydia Seymour
  • David Grant
  • James Arnold
  • Naomi Ling
  • Oliver Assersohn
  • Eleanor Davison
  • Michael Uberoi
  • Farhaz Khan
  • Saul Margo
  • Ben Bradley
  • Clare Baker
  • Samantha Cooper
  • Robert Dickason
  • Keira Gore
  • Nicholas Hill
  • Will Young

Please see for further details.
For further information, or to enquire about his
availability, please contact Daniel Barnett's clerks on 020 7353 6381 or visit
Daniel Barnett
Outer Temple Chambers
The Outer Temple
222 The Strand
London, WC2R 1BA
Tel: 020 7353 6381
Fax: 020 7583 1786
Document Exchange: LDE 351 (Chancery Lane)