- Cited — Stephen Sullivan v Bury Street Capital Limited 2021-11-16
“… is it required to express every step of its reasoning in any greater degree of detail than that necessary to be Meek compliant (Meek v Birmingham City Council [1987] IRLR 250). Expression of the findings and reasoning in terms which are as simple, clear and concise as possible is to be encouraged. In Meek, Bingham LJ quoted with app…”
- Doubted — All Answers Ltd v W & Anor 2021-04-30
“…t tribunal on the various issues was adequate (that is, it complied with the requirements set out in the judgment in Meek v City of Birmingham District Council [1987] IRLR 250 and English v Emery Reimbold & Strick Ltd. [2002] EWCA Civ 605, [2002] 1 WLR 2409) and the EAT did not have doubts as to the adequacy of the employment tribuna…”
- Cited — Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust 2021-01-15
“…The Appellant referred to Meek v City of Birmingham District Council [1987] IRLR 250 and complained that the Judge’s Reasons simply failed to show why she had declined to exercise her discretion in his favour. For the reasons given above, I can…”
- Followed — Simpson v Cantor Fitzgerald Europe 2020-11-27
“…of Rule 62, headed “reasons”, is to enable the parties to know why they have won or lost. In his classic judgment in Meek v City of Birmingham District Council [1987] IRLR 250 Bingham LJ cited with approval the following observations of Sir John Donaldson MR in an earlier case (Martin v Glynwed Distribution [1983] ICR 511):…”
- Cited — Hare Wines Ltd v Kaur & Anor 2019-02-22
“…e employment Judge has failed to give adequate reasons for her decision. Appellant will rely upon the authorities of Meek v City of Birmingham District Council [1987] IRLR 250, CA and Greenwood v NWF Retail [2011] ICR 896, EAT in support of a submission that this element of the decision is vitiated by an absence of reasons.”…”
- Cited — Thilakawardhana, R (on the application of) v Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education & Anor 2018-01-17
“…elaborate formalistic product of refined legal draftsmanship” is not required from lay tribunals: Bingham LJ (as he then was) in Meek v Birmingham City Council [1987] IRLR 250, at [8], cited in Phipps v General Medical Council [2006] EWCA Civ 397; [2006] Medical Lloyd’s Rep. 345, at [81].…”