Where a case had been remitted by the EAT to a tribunal for reconsideration in respect of matters specified by the EAT, the tribunal’s consideration was to be limited to those matters remitted. It was not open to the tribunal to consider matters outside the scope of the elements remitted. ‘The effect of an order remitting a case to a tribunal which had otherwise exhausted its jurisdiction was considered by this court in the context of arbitral proceedings in Interbulk Ltd v Aiden Shipping Co Ltd (The ‘Vimeira’ (No.1)) [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 410. Ackner L.J. pointed out that the extent to which the tribunal’s jurisdiction is revived in consequence of an order remitting the matter to it depends entirely on the scope of the remission. If, as occurred in the present case, the matter is remitted for the tribunal to consider certain specific issues, it will have no jurisdiction to hear or determine matters outside the scope of those issues and it must follow that it has no power to allow one party to amend its case to raise issues which were not previously before it. In the present case it is clear from the passages in the judgment of the Employment Appeal Tribunal to which I have already referred that remission was ordered in very limited terms simply to enable the industrial tribunal to reconsider whether Iceland’s new terms of employment had been accepted by Mrs Aparau. That being so, the tribunal did not by virtue of the remission have jurisdiction to reopen the case generally, nor did it have jurisdiction to hear or determine any argument on the part of Iceland relating to the fairness of any dismissal. Although Mr Glennie sought to persuade us to the contrary, I for my part am quite satisfied that that was not an issue which had previously been raised in the proceedings and it was certainly not within the scope of the remission.’
Judges:
Moore-Bick J, Peter Gibson, Mance LJJ
Citations:
Times 12-Nov-1999, Gazette 25-Nov-1999, Gazette 01-Dec-1999, [2000] ICR 341, [2000] IRLR 196, [1999] EWCA Civ 3047, [2000] 1 All ER 228
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Aparau v Iceland Frozen Foods Plc EAT 9-Oct-1995
. .
Cited – Aiden Shipping Co Ltd v Interbulk Ltd (The ‘Vimeira’) HL 1986
Wide Application of Costs Against Third Party
A claim had been made against charterers by the ship owners, and in turn by the charterers against their sub-charterers. Notice of motion were issued after arbitration awards were not accepted. When heard, costs awards were made, which were now . .
See Also – Aparau v Iceland Frozen Foods Plc EAT 13-Oct-1997
. .
Appeal from – Aparau v Iceland Frozen Foods Plc EAT 12-Mar-1998
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Administrative
Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.77830
