The editor of the IRLRs, Michael Rubenstein, has asked me to forward on this comment, which I am happy to do:-
"The EAT's new Practice Statement does not draw a distinction between "official" law reports and others. The distinction drawn by Mr Justice Langstaff is between "formal" reports with head notes, such as the ICRs or IRLRs, and electronic reports of cases, such as from BAILLI."
Original bulletin appears below
The President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, Mr Justice Langstaff, has issued a Practice Statement dated 17th April 2012.
All practitioners who appear in the EAT should read the full document; the summary below is not a suitable substitute. The main points are:-
- in cases where fresh evidence arises, the preferred course is to seek a review from the Employment Tribunal before appealing to the EAT;
- appeals should not normally involve citing more than 10 authorities. Practitioners should use the official law report copies where possible, and highlight the relevant extracts in the authorities bundle.
Any practitioners who do not comply with the Practice Statement may be asked to justify their departure from it.