London United Busways Ltd v Dankali (2023)

The ET erred in failing to grant an application for strike out in circumstances where the ET had relied purely upon a statement from the Claimant's representative, in which the representative asserted that they had "blanket oral authority" to act for the Claimant on their behalf in their absence. The ET failed to take "further steps to investigate and satisfy itself of the position" and the EAT ruled that this had been "unfair to the respondent". The EAT did however also hold that the ET had not erred in not looking at whether the agreement between the Claimant and their representative (a trade union) breached "the common law doctrine of maintenance or champerty".