EAT Employment Tribunal struck out unfair dismissal claims stating they were bound to fail. The employers had made two applications, one for a deposit to be ordered pursuant to rule 20 of the Employment Tribunal rules, and the second for a strike-out pursuant to rule 18(7)(b) on the grounds that the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success. At the first hearing only the rule 20 application was formally before the Tribunal because no notice had by then been given in relation to the rule 18 matter. In fact the Tribunal concluded that the claim was bound to fail, but fixed a second hearing to consider the question of strike-out and also the means of the claimant. Means had to be considered before any deposit was ordered. At the second hearing an order to strike-out all the claims was granted. The claimant alleged that the Chairman had come to the second hearing have prejudged the issue, given her trenchant comments at the first hearing, and that in any event there were fundamental factual disputes which made the strike-out wholly inappropriate. The EAT upheld the appeal on both grounds.
Judges:
The Honourable Mr Justice Elias (President)
Citations:
[2006] UKEAT 0705 – 05 – 2507, UKEAT/0612/05, UKEAT/0705/05, [2007] ICR 1126
Links:
Citing:
Cited – Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen v Brady EAT 31-Mar-2006
The reason adduced by the union for the dismissal of the climant was found by the Tribunal on the facts not to be the true reason for dismissal, the true reason being the union executive committee’s political antipathy to Mr Brady.
Held: It . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust CA 7-Mar-2007
The employer had applied to strike out their employee’s claim for unfair dismissal, and also sought a deposit from the claimant. The claim had been re-instated by the EAT.
Held: A claim should not be struck out where, as here, there were facts . .
See Also – Ezsias v The Welsh Ministers QBD 23-Nov-2007
The Claimant claimed under Section 7(9) of the 1998 Act for failures to disclose data to him following several requests. He sought (i) a declaration that the National Assembly had failed to comply with their obligations under the 1998 Act, (ii) . .
See Also – Ezsias v Welsh Ministers CA 24-Jun-2008
Renewed application for leave to appeal against orders making a limited declaration that there were certain breaches on the defendant’s part of their obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998 in that they did not disclose all disclosable . .
See Also – Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust EAT 18-Mar-2011
EAT CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Disciplinary and grievance procedure
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason
(1) An employee who has been dismissed because of the . .
Applied – Pillay v Inc Research UK Ltd EAT 9-Sep-2011
EAT (Practice and Procedure : Striking-Out or Dismissal) The Employment Judge ought not to have struck out the Claimant’s claim for unfair dismissal under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Ezsias v . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.244568