Scott v Matthew Arnold & Baldwin Solicitors - Setting provisional remedy hearing date did not, in itself, indicate a decision in claimant's favour [2010] EAT

The fact that an employment tribunal, when reserving its judgment at the end of a hearing, arranged a provisional date for a remedy hearing is not in any way to be taken as an indication that the Claimant has won.

Ms Scott was a secretary with a firm of solicitors, Matthew Arnold & Baldwin ("MAB"). Relations broke down between them and she was dismissed - unfairly she claimed. An employment tribunal disagreed with her. It considered that part of her case was brought in bad faith and that her dismissal was fair, or alternatively, if it was unfair, that Ms Scott contributed to it 100% and it would be just and equitable to award her nothing. Ms Scott appealed to the EAT.

The full content of this page is available to subscribers only. Please purchase a subscription if you feel this content will be of use to you.

Login or subscribe (includes subscription information) to access the full content of this page.