Jennifer Tyack formerly t/as Country Kidz v Cain

Jennifer Tyack, trading as Country Kidz, filed an appeal against a decision rendered by an arbitrator, with the respondent being Ms. Cain. The central dispute revolves around the admission of new evidence in the appeal, specifically whether the tribunal should allow the introduction of a centre board that was part of the boundary of the window display in the Country Kidz shop and a statement from Jennifer Tyack. The appeal was heard by the tribunal, which had to decide on the admissibility of this new evidence under Practice Direction No 6.

The primary legal issue before the tribunal was whether the new evidence, namely the centre board and the additional statement from Jennifer Tyack, could be introduced in the appeal. This required the tribunal to consider whether the new evidence could not reasonably have been obtained earlier and whether its exclusion would cause a substantial injustice. The tribunal also needed to assess whether the procedural requirements outlined in Practice Direction No 6 were followed. Additionally, the tribunal had to consider the objection raised by Country Kidz’ solicitor to the Arbitrator’s questioning of Ms. Cain towards the end of the arbitration proceedings, and how this affected the admissibility of the new evidence.

The tribunal examined the procedural history and the rationale behind the introduction of the new evidence. It found that the centre board and the additional statement from Jennifer Tyack were relevant to the dispute and could not reasonably have been obtained earlier due to the inconsistencies in Ms. Cain’s accounts of her injury. The tribunal also noted that the failure to admit this evidence would result in a substantial injustice, as it would prevent the tribunal from making a fully informed decision. Furthermore, the tribunal considered the objection raised by Country Kidz’ solicitor and acknowledged the procedural unfairness that resulted from the Arbitrator’s questioning of Ms. Cain without Country Kidz’ presence. The tribunal concluded that the new evidence should be admitted as it was necessary to achieve justice in the case.

The tribunal allowed the introduction of the new evidence, granting Country Kidz’ application. It determined that the centre board and the additional statement from Jennifer Tyack were relevant and necessary to address the inconsistencies in Ms. Cain’s accounts and to ensure a fair and just resolution of the appeal. The tribunal’s decision was based on the balance of convenience and the need to prevent substantial injustice.