Bias in the tribunals

Case 1: The facts

Adekunle Lawal was concerned when he appealed over his race discrimination claim to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) and found that the barrister representing his employer had sat as a tribunal chair with one or both of the lay members hearing his appeal. Lawal believed that this was bound to influence them in their decision on his claim. He took a claim alleging bias which was lost at the Court of Appeal and so was pursued to the House of Lords.

The ruling

The House of Lords said that the present practice in the EAT which allows a barrister to represent individuals in circumstances such as those in Lawal's case "tends to undermine public confidence in the system". According to the law lords, it "should be discontinued". There should be a restriction on part-time judges appearing as counsel before a panel of the EAT consisting of one or two lay members with whom they had previously sat.

The law lords also took the opportunity to set out the test to be used in cases where bias is alleged. The court must ascertain all the circumstances that have a bearing on the suggestion that the judge was biased; and it must then ask whether those circumstances would lead a fair-minded and informed observer to include there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased.

* Lawal v Northern Spirit [2003] UKHL 35