Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Case lawDisability discriminationDisability

Tribunal impartiality: Wikipedia research made panel appear biased

by Alison Balfour 27 Jan 2015
by Alison Balfour 27 Jan 2015 Tribunal impartiality was called into question after its online research.
Tribunal impartiality was called into question after its online research.

In DLA Piper’s latest case report, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that employment tribunal impartiality was called into question after a panel conducted its own research when considering a claimant’s disability.

East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Sanders

Facts

Ms Sanders brought a case to the employment tribunal for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. The claimant was unrepresented. The employer was represented by both a firm of solicitors and counsel for the hearing itself.

At the outset of the hearing, the tribunal heard evidence and submissions on the preliminary issue of whether or not Ms Sanders was a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. The disability was alleged to be depression.

In the course of the judge’s questioning, the claimant mentioned that she took one 80mg tablet of the antidepressant citalopram per day. On cross-examination, she conceded that she had taken three or four 20mg tablets per day. It transpired that the claimant had last been prescribed the citalopram in mid-2010, but continued to take it at the end of 2012, having built up a backlog of the medication.

Disability discrimination

Stress: “doolally” and “cuckoo’s nest” comments in return-to-work interview were disability discrimination

No disability discrimination in dismissal following post-maternity-leave absences for depression

Tribunal considers whether or not a phobia can be a disability

Following the evidence and submissions on disability, the employment tribunal retired to consider the issue and the parties’ submissions.

At this point and without reference to the parties, the panel researched the general dosage of citalopram on the internet using websites that included Wikipedia.

On the tribunal panel’s return, it informed the parties of what it had done and that it had discovered that the claimant had been given the maximum dosage of citalopram.

The tribunal asked the claimant if she was aware of this and pressed her on whether or not she had been told that she was severely depressed, thereby assuming that the information they had found was accurate.

Employment tribunal decision

The employer asked the tribunal panel to recuse itself – to excuse itself from a case because of a potential lack of impartiality – on the basis that it had:

  • exceeded its role in investigating evidence that neither party had raised; and
  • assumed the truth of that evidence.

The request was refused and the employer asserted that the manner of the refusal showed bias in favour of the claimant in her disability discrimination claim.

Appeal

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld the employer’s appeal in this disability discrimination claim, on the grounds that:

  • the tribunal is not permitted to consult the internet;
  • the tribunal should have recused itself when the employer objected to it searching the internet; and
  • there was an appearance of bias from the tribunal.

The EAT held that, although rule 41 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure allows the employment tribunal to ask its own questions to assist the witness to give their best evidence, it does not allow a tribunal to make enquiries on its own behalf into evidence that was not volunteered by either party.

The EAT stated that the “irregularity” of having searched the internet could have been remedied. However, the employment tribunal assumed the truth of the information it had discovered, despite its origins, and there was a clear risk of improper weight being placed on that information, regardless of the dubious relevance of the new “evidence”.

For the EAT, the manner of the employment tribunal’s refusal to recuse itself appeared to the EAT to indicate a feeling of animosity towards the employer. Further, the tribunal had submitted comments that could be construed as arguments in favour of the claimant. It had, for example, criticised the counsel’s cross-examination style and the opinions of an expert psychiatrist.

The EAT held that, in assisting one party, employment tribunals should be careful to maintain impartiality and not stray into advocacy. In this claim, that line was crossed.

Implications

This decision is a reminder of the true role of the employment tribunal as an impartial “umpire”.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

The employment tribunal must walk a delicate line between being supportive of witnesses who are unrepresented or vulnerable, and appearing biased. It has control over maintaining this balance through questioning witnesses and monitoring the questioning by parties.

Tribunals may assist litigants to give the best evidence that they would wish to give but, in cases such as this, an over-eagerness to assist an unrepresented claimant can be fatal to the merit of any subsequent judgment.

Alison Balfour

Alison Balfour is a trainee solicitor in the employment team at DLA Piper.

previous post
Five pitfalls to avoid with online personality profiling
next post
Five steps for dealing with a grievance raised by one employee about another

You may also like

Consultation launched after Supreme Court ‘sex’ ruling

20 May 2025

Union rep teacher awarded £370k for unfair dismissal

15 May 2025

EHRC bows to pressure and extends gender consultation

15 May 2025

NHS worker awarded £29k after Darth Vader comparison

8 May 2025

‘Unacceptable to question integrity’ of Supreme Court judgment

2 May 2025

Connect to Work: how businesses can play their...

2 May 2025

Trans ex-judge to appeal Supreme Court biological sex...

29 Apr 2025

EHRC: Interim update on single-sex spaces draws criticism

28 Apr 2025

Opposition to Supreme Court sex ruling is ‘wishful...

22 Apr 2025

Supreme Court transgender ruling: ‘common sense’ or ‘incredibly...

17 Apr 2025

  • 2025 Employee Communications Report PROMOTED | HR and leadership...Read more
  • The Majority of Employees Have Their Eyes on Their Next Move PROMOTED | A staggering 65%...Read more
  • Prioritising performance management: Strategies for success (webinar) WEBINAR | In today’s fast-paced...Read more
  • Self-Leadership: The Key to Successful Organisations PROMOTED | Eletive is helping businesses...Read more
  • Retaining Female Talent: Four Ways to Reduce Workplace Drop Out PROMOTED | International Women’s Day...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+