Bolch v Chipman: EAT 19 May 2003

EAT The EAT considered the consequences, of a decision to strike out a Notice of Appearance under Rule 15(2)(d).
Held: The EAT will require an employment tribunal, among other things, to consider the proportionality of what it was doing. If a fair trial were not possible on liability, there could still be an order simply debarring the respondent from taking any further part on liability, but permitting that respondent to take part on the question of compensation.
The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (P)
EAT/1149/02, EAT/1159/02, [2003] EAT 1149 – 02 – 1905, [2003] UKEAT 1149 – 02 – 1905, [2004] IRLR 140
Bailii, Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedBlockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James CA 25-May-2006
The defendant company appealed against an order re-instating the claimants’ claims for damages for race discrimination and victimisation after they had been struck out for wilful disobedience of the tribunal’s orders.
Held: When making a . .
CitedTisson v Telewest Communications Group Ltd EAT 19-Feb-2008
The claimant’s claim had been struck out for his failure to comply with an order to serve a list of documents.
Held: The appeal failed. The principles applied under the Civil Procedure Rules should be applied in Employment Tribunals. The . .
CitedAbegaze v Shrewsbury College of Arts and Technology CA 20-Feb-2009
In 2000 the claimant succeeded in his claim for discrimination, but had not pursued his remedy. He now appealed against a refusal to allow him to take it further. He had initially failed to pursue the matter for ill health. He later refused to . .
CitedNSM Music Ltd v J H Leefe EAT 14-Dec-2005
EAT Practice and Procedure: Appearance/Response, Review and Appellate Jurisdiction/Burns-Barke
When a Respondent has been debarred from taking part in proceedings under ET Rule 9, he may request Reasons . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 January 2021; Ref: scu.189408