Reply to: Adding house wife as a ltd company director

[JohntheBike]

Here it is in pretty pictures.

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

OK, this is what I was looking for

[northernladuk]

Here it is in pretty pictures.

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

[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).

[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.

[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]

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.

[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 ?

[DeludedKitten]

be careful, as I can prove what I say.

[DeludedKitten]

that's for Tax related issues, amongst others, as I understand it and the EAT has equivalent priority in law.

Amongst the other issues that the Appeals Court might hear, you would find employment cases.

An appeal from the EAT would go to the Appeals Court, so they do not have equivalent priority at all.

The legal process for going through the Appeals Court (and possibly beyond) is significantly longer, more arduous and more expensive than just rocking up with your £1600 at an EAT and arguing your case yourself.

One would generally expect an eminent legal mind to understand these things.

[JohntheBike]

OK, so not the Appeals Court.

that's for Tax related issues, amongst others, as I understand it and the EAT has equivalent priority in law. But I guess someone will come along here and correct me.

edit,
this is the court structure as I understand it -

Redirect Notice

which shows the upper court from tribunals as the Appeal Court. So, based on that structure the EAT is under the jurisdiction of the Appeal Court.

[mudskipper]

EAT December 2002 heard by Mr. Justice Elias

OK, so not the Appeals Court.

[JohntheBike]

Court of Appeal or EAT?

EAT December 2002 heard by Mr. Justice Elias

[mudskipper]

Many years ago I was an avid poster on these fora under a different pseudonym, but many were strongly opposed to my opinions and actions. So I'm reluctant to publish details again here. But rest assured, what I've stated is entirely correct. If it's allowable on these fora, you can advise me of your private Email address and I'll send you the details.

Court of Appeal or EAT?

[JohntheBike]

The more he says the less I believe.

be careful, as I can prove what I say.

[JohntheBike]

You went to the Appeal Court with no legal representation??

What's the reference for the High Court hearing and the Appeals Court one as well?

Many years ago I was an avid poster on these fora under a different pseudonym, but many were strongly opposed to my opinions and actions. So I'm reluctant to publish details again here. But rest assured, what I've stated is entirely correct. If it's allowable on these fora, you can advise me of your private Email address and I'll send you the details.