In a case of Constructive Dismissal a tribunal halted the proceedings after the employee had given their side of the story, and issued an oral determination after retiring to make a deliberation. the tribunal felt that it had heard enough and the employee did not adequately discharge the burden of proof necessary for a claim of constructive dismissal.
The tribunal felt that in the case of Murtagh v Venair UD2029 [2009], it was best not to delay proceedings any further and to essentially waste the time of the Employer by making them go through their side, when the employee had already failed to discharge their burden of proof, and so spend further time and costs in a needless process. The decision is also very detailed and specifies two previous cases (Courtney -v- The Chartered Institute of Certified Accountants, and Kirwan -v- Primark) from the EAT where the employee had no discharged the burden of proof and the tribunal dismissed the case without having evidence from the respondent.
This decision is a very clear example of some of the more common sense decisions that have been issued in recent times where the inability of an employee to state their case, or where a case is clearly vexatious the tribunal makes a point of noting this in the decision, and can either award costs to the employer, or as in this case calla halt to the proceedings to save any further inconvenience to the respondent.
