In Sage (UK) Ltd v G Bacco, HHJ Clark made a practice statement to the effect that a party relying on a reported case should provide a photocopy of the report (normally from either the Industrial Case Reports or the Industrial Relations Law Reports in this context) and include the correct citation in its list of authorities. Transcripts of judgments should only be used where no report was available.
This is an entirely reasonable request to make of lawyers appearing in the EAT, who should have easy access to the relevant reports. The main reason is that law reports begin with a ‘headnote’ that summarises the point(s) of law decided, cross-referenced to the key passages in the judgment.
However, complying with this practice statement may be harder for parties acting for themselves, because while transcripts of most EAT, Court of Appeal and House of Lords judgments are readily available for free online, the ICRs and IRLRs are available online only by way of expensive subscriptions. Getting hold of them may mean a trip to a library and a long session with the photocopier. If the other side is represented by lawyers, this is a good reason to charm them into compiling a joint bundle of authorities even if it is your appeal and it is therefore technically your job.
If the worst comes to the worst, the authors doubt that unrepresented parties who are unable to comply will provoke the EAT’s wrath.