Contract claim; Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994.
1) Does a Claimant who makes an application for strike out under Rule 37(1) have the right, in terms of Rule 37(2), to insist upon that application being considered at an oral hearing in public?
2) Did the Tribunal, in any event, err in law (a) in directing that the Appellant’s application for strike out should be determined only on the basis of written submissions; and thereafter (b) in refusing to vary that case management direction?
3) Did the Tribunal err in law and / or fail to give adequate reasons for refusing the Appellant’s application to strike out the Respondent’s ET3?
4) Did the Tribunal err in law and / or fail to give adequate reasons for striking out the Appellant’s claim of damages for breach of contract?
All four questions were answered in the negative, and the Appeals were refused.
 UKEAT 0002 – 20 – 0812
England and Wales
Updated: 08 May 2021; Ref: scu.661669