Adding house wife as a ltd company director

[DeludedKitten]

be careful, as I can prove what I say.

[northernladuk]

EAT December 2002 heard by Mr. Justice Elias

Bowne International Ltd v Slater & Ors, Court of Appeal - United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal, December 20, 2002, [2002] UKEAT 1165_02_2012 ?

[JohntheBike]

Bowne International Ltd v Slater & Ors, Court of Appeal - United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal, December 20, 2002, [2002] UKEAT 1165_02_2012 ?

no, guess again

but as the heading suggests, the EAT is part of the Court of Appeal. So, I represented myself in the EAT, aka, the Court of Appeal?, in December 2002.

edit
under the heading of "Appearances" in the judgement


For the Appellant - the Appellant in person.

[DeludedKitten]

no, guess again

but as the heading suggests, the EAT is part of the Court of Appeal. So, I represented myself in the EAT, aka, the Court of Appeal?, in December 2002.

No, the EAT is NOT part of the Court of Appeal.

They are not the same thing.

You are deluding yourself if you think that they are.

Nobody, ever, has said that the Employment Appeal Tribunal is also known as the Court of Appeal and been factually correct.

[JohntheBike]

No, the EAT is NOT part of the Court of Appeal.

They are not the same thing.

You are deluding yourself if you think that they are.

Nobody, ever, has said that the Employment Appeal Tribunal is also known as the Court of Appeal and been factually correct.

well, the title of the case listed seems to imply that the EAT is a part of the Court of Appeal. The diagram I linked to also suggests this. So we need a legal bod to clarify this for us. i.e what is the relationship between the EAT and the Court of Appeal, and also what is the relationship between the Upper Tribunal and the Court of Appeal. Both are higher than their respective lower courts. So in the diagram listed, it shows "Tribunals" subservient to the Court of Appeal. So does that mean, the 1st Tier Tribunal, the Upper Tribunal, the ET and the EAT are subservient to the COA within their respective hierarchies?

i.e !st Tier Tribunal > Upper Tribunal > Court of Appeal
and Employment Tribunal > Employment Appeal Tribunal > Court of Appeal

but whatever, I represented myself at the Employment Appeal Tribunal, which was heard by a High Court Judge, Mr. Justice Elias. A preliminary hearing had also been heard by a High Court Judge, Mr. Justice Lindsay.

[northernladuk]

no, guess again

but as the heading suggests, the EAT is part of the Court of Appeal. So, I represented myself in the EAT, aka, the Court of Appeal?, in December 2002.

edit
under the heading of "Appearances" in the judgement


For the Appellant - the Appellant in person.

No it doesn't. It indicates the Court of Appeal is hearing something that came through the EAT. The appeals they hear could have come from a number routes. It sits above EAT as the next step but is no way part of it. It has a Civil and Criminal divisions which proclude it from being part of anything for a start and so on.

Read the wiki
Employment Appeal Tribunal - Wikipedia

A party dissatisfied with a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal may apply to the tribunal requesting a review of its own decision. The tribunal may also review its decision of its own motion. Decisions can be reviewed where an error is relatively minor, for example a clerical error. Where a party believes the tribunal has misapplied the law or acted perversely, the review process is inappropriate and the party may appeal to the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) or the Court of Session (Scotland).

[northernladuk]

Here it is in pretty pictures.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/...art-160419.pdf

[JohntheBike]

Here it is in pretty pictures.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/...art-160419.pdf

OK, this is what I was looking for