A Minnoch & Ors v InterserveFM Ltd & Ors
[2023] EAT 35
Mathy Jorine Matondo v Kingsland Nursery Limited
27 June 2024
[2024] EAT 123
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A worker claimed they weren't paid for overtime. The first judge said they needed more proof than just their own word. A higher court disagreed, saying the judge should have considered *all* the evidence, not just demand extra proof. The case will be heard again by a different judge.
Key Facts
- •Ms Matondo claimed unlawful deductions from wages for unpaid overtime.
- •A factual dispute existed regarding the number of overtime hours worked.
- •The employment tribunal dismissed the claim, finding insufficient corroborating evidence for Ms Matondo's testimony.
- •Ms Matondo appealed to the EAT.
- •The EAT found the tribunal erred by requiring corroboration for Ms Matondo's evidence.
- •The EAT allowed the appeal and remitted the case for a rehearing.
Legal Principles
There is no rule of evidence requiring corroboration of a witness's testimony.
Hovis Ltd v Louton, EA-2020-000973, 22 November 2021
Employment tribunals must weigh all evidence, assessing reliability and credibility, and make findings of fact based on the overall picture.
Hovis Ltd v Louton, EA-2020-000973, 22 November 2021
The burden of proof rests on the claimant, but the tribunal must assess all evidence presented.
Morris v London Iron and Steel Company Limited [1987] ICR 855
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The employment tribunal erred in law by requiring corroborating evidence for the claimant's testimony and by failing to properly weigh all evidence before it.
Case remitted to the employment tribunal for a rehearing.
The EAT could not substitute its own decision and deemed a rehearing necessary to properly assess the evidence.