EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Review
On 27 June 2011 the Tribunal prepared a letter informing the Claimant that Employment Judge Hill was considering striking out the claim because he had not complied with the order dated 16 May. The letter said that if he wished to object to the proposal he should give his reasons in writing by 5 July 2011. He did not do so; his claim was struck out. He applied for a review, stating that he had not received the letter dated 27 June 2011. The Employment Judge said that she ‘did not accept the Claimant was telling the truth’ because the letter had been sent by email to the usual address. She refused the application for review peremptorily under rule 35(3).
Held: she was not entitled to reach the conclusion that the Claimant was not telling the truth without further enquiry.
Judges:
David Richardson J
Citations:
[2012] UKEAT 0037 – 12 – 1106
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462926