The claimant firm of solicitors sought an order requiring the defendant to amend her employment tribunal claim so as to accord with the partnership agreement to which she was party, and to submit to arbitration. The defendant said that statutory provisions said that her freedom to go to court could not be ousted, and that the arbitration clause was void.
Held: The claimant’s request was denied. ‘Clause 41 of the Agreement that arbitration is a final resolution of a Member’s dispute subject only to an appeal on a question of law does in my judgment preclude continuation of proceedings before an Employment Tribunal. The arbitration provided for by Clause 41 is not one falling within ERA Section 203(5) . . Section 144(1) renders unenforceable an agreement to preclude or limit the continuation of sex discrimination proceedings before an Employment Tribunal unless reached in accordance with Section 144(4). It would be surprising if this were not so. There would be no discernable rationale for rendering unenforceable such agreements reached before proceedings have commenced but enforceable once an ET1 had been lodged. Further it would be surprising if employees were given lesser protection in this regard when pursuing discrimination claims under the EA than when pursuing claims under the ERA.’
Slade DBE J
[2011] EWHC 668 (QB), [2011] ArbLR 7, [2011] IRLR 467, [2011] CP Rep 31, [2012] ICR 928
Bailii
Equality Act 2010 120, Employment Rights Act 1996 , Directive 2006/54/EC, Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Chorion Plc and Others v Lane ChD 7-Apr-1999
A former executive director brought a claim for unfair dismissal in the Employment Tribunal. Chorion brought proceedings in the Chancery Division alleging wrongful acts committed by him while he was a senior executive.
Held: There was an . .
Cited – Ahmad Al-Naimi (T/a Buildmaster Construction Services) v Islamic Press Agency Incorporated CA 28-Jan-2000
The court has an inherent power to stay proceedings. The court could refer a matter to arbitration where there was an arbitration clause, but could also do so under its inherent discretion, where this was not quite clear, but it was clear that good . .
Cited – Naqvi v Stephens Jewellers Ltd EAT 1978
The parties had reached an agreement not to continue unfair dismissal proceedings, but the defendant now complained of the claimant’s attempt to do so.
Held: The section renders void an agreement to withdraw a claim already made to the . .
Cited – Reichhold Norway ASA and Reichhold Chemicals Inc v Goldman Sachs International CA 28-Jun-1999
An application was made to stay proceedings to await the decision of a foreign court. At first instance, Moore-Bick J had held that a Court has an interest in deciding the order in which related proceedings should be tried ‘not only because the . .
Cited – Allianz Spa (Anciennement Riunione Adriatica Di Sicurta) v West Tankers Inc (‘the Front Comor’) ECJ 10-Feb-2009
ECJ (Judgment) A West Tankers ship damaged a jetty in Syracuse. An agreement provided for an arbitration in London. The insurers having paid out brought a subrogated action in Italy. West Tankers sought an order . .
Cited – Sears Plc v Sears Roebuck and Co and others 1993
The court granted an Order against the plaintiff requiring it not to proceed with its case before the Trade Mark Registry until the determination of their High Court action. Lindsay J said: ‘the court should look to the two matters broadly and ask . .
Cited by:
See Also – Van Winkelhof v Clyde and Co Llp and Another EAT 26-Apr-2012
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS
Worker, employee or neither
Working outside the jurisdiction
Whether LLP equity member was a limb (b) worker under section 230(3). Allowing Claimant’s appeal, she was. . .
See Also – Clyde and Co Llp v Van Winkelhof EAT 26-Apr-2012
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS
Worker, employee or neither
Working outside the jurisdiction
Whether LLP equity member was a limb (b) worker under section 230(3). Allowing Claimant’s appeal, she was. . .
See Also – Clyde and Co Llp and Another v Bates van Winkelhof CA 26-Sep-2012
The claimant was a solicitor partner with the appellant limited liability partnership at their offices in Tanzania. She disclosed what she believed to be money laundering by a local partner. She was dismissed. She had just disclosed her pregnancy . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Legal Professions, Employment, Arbitration, Company
Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.430748