EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Striking-out/dismissal
In April 2009, the Claimant, who was then 77 years of age, was employed by the Respondent, when he was laid off without pay. While still being employed by the Respondent he submitted an ET1 alleging he had been laid off.
By a judgment of Employment Judge Salter (‘the first judgment’), it was held that the Claimant was not entitled to redundancy pay. The Claimant was dismissed because of retirement with effect from 31 July 2009.
He then submitted a new ET1 claiming, among other things, four different types of unfair dismissal, notice pay in breach of contract and a guarantee payment.
The Respondent applies to have the claims struck out as being res judicata by reason of the first judgment on alternatively as an abuse in the Henderson v Henderson sense. The application was granted save in respect of the guarantee payment. The Claimant appealed and the Respondent cross-appealed in respect of the guarantee payment.
Held –
1. Appeal allowed as:
(a) Res judicata did not apply as although the first Tribunal held that the Claimant was not dismissed by reason of redundancy, this did not create an estoppel as (i) this finding was not necessary for the decision as the claim was layoff (Arnold v National Westminster Bank [1991] 2 AC 93, 105 applied; and (ii) In any event, the first Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to deal with a redundancy as it was premature (Watts v Rubery Owen [1997] 2 All ER 1, applied);
(b) This was not a case of abuse as there was no oppressive conduct and this was not a case of the Claimant abusing the court process (Johnson v Gore-Wood [2002] 2 AC 1, 31 applied).
The cross-appeal was dismissed as the Employment Judge was entitled to conclude that it was not an abuse in the Henderson v Henderson sense to pursue this claim in the second action.
Judges:
Silber J
Citations:
[2011] UKEAT 0382 – 10 – 1703
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Henderson v Henderson 20-Jul-1843
Abuse of Process and Re-litigation
The court set down the principles to be applied in abuse of process cases, where a matter was raised again which should have been dealt with in earlier proceedings.
Sir James Wigram VC said: ‘In trying this question I believe I state the rule . .
Still Good Law – Watts v Rubery Owen Conveyancer Limited EAT 1977
The claimant sought a redundancy payment. The employer said that his employment had not yet finished.
Held: Kilner Brown J said: ‘The effect of these cases is that where an application is made to an Industrial Tribunal before the act of . .
Mentioned – Pritchard-Rhodes Limited v Boon and Milton EAT 1979
An application to the Industrial Tribunal for a redundancy payment was not effective because it failed to comply with the statutory requirements which, on their true construction, provided that an application could not be effectively made to an . .
Cited – O’Laoire v Jackel International Limited (No 2) CA 1991
On taking up employment the plaintiff was told he would later be appointed managing director. His employment was terminated, and he sought damages.
Held: The defendant was estopped from denying it would appoint him managing director, since . .
Cited – Arnold v National Westminster Bank Plc HL 1991
Tenants invited the court to construe the terms of a rent review provision in the sub-underlease under which they held premises. The provision had been construed in a sense adverse to them in earlier proceedings before Walton J, but they had been . .
Cited – Danyluk v Ainsworth Technologies Inc 12-Jul-2001
Canlii (Supreme Court of Canada) Administrative law – Issue estoppel – Employee filing complaint against employer under Employment Standards Act seeking unpaid wages and commissions – Employee subsequently . .
Cited – Meek v City of Birmingham District Council CA 18-Feb-1987
Employment Tribunals to Provide Sufficient Reasons
Tribunals, when giving their decisions, are required to do no more than to make clear their findings of fact and to answer any question of law raised.
Bingham LJ said: ‘It has on a number of occasions been made plain that the decision of an . .
Cited – Chapman v Simon CA 1994
The court considered the approach where a party sought to raise on appeal a complaint not made in the case presented to the tribunal.
Held: An Employment Tribunal must decide the issues which are put before it and should not decide issues . .
Cited – South Durham Health Authority v Unison EAT 6-Feb-1995
Mummery J P said: ‘Similarly in the case of entitlement to redundancy payments discussed in the authorities relied on by [counsel] there is no right of action, no entitlement to the payments before the date of termination has arrived. An originating . .
Cited – Williams, Regina v CACD 2-Nov-2010
The offence of causing death by driving while unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured, is committed if the driver is unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured and if the driving is a cause of death in the sense that it was ‘more than negligible or de . .
Cited – Watt (Formerly Carter) v Ahsan HL 21-Nov-2007
The claimant was a Pakistani member of the Labour Party. He had sought selection as parliamentary candidate, but allegations had been made about behaviour of members in the Pakistani community in his ward and the local party had been suspended. A . .
Cited – Manson v Vooght and Others CA 3-Nov-1998
The claimant was the former managing director of a company, which had been placed into administrative receivership. The claims were for breach of contract and conversion (in relation to antique furniture) and they were brought against the . .
Cited – HM Prison Service v Barua EAT 15-Nov-2006
EAT Time Limits
Practice and Procedure – 2002 Act and pre-action requirements
Unfair Dismissal – Constructive dismissal
For the purpose of the extension of the time afforded by reg. 15 of the . .
Cited – Johnson v Gore Wood and Co HL 14-Dec-2000
Shareholder May Sue for Additional Personal Losses
A company brought a claim of negligence against its solicitors, and, after that claim was settled, the company’s owner brought a separate claim in respect of the same subject-matter.
Held: It need not be an abuse of the court for a shareholder . .
Cited – Morris v Wentworth-Stanley CA 4-Sep-1998
Two actions had been brought by a contractor against the partners in a farming partnership. Those actions were consolidated. One of the partners died and when the plaintiff found that out he discontinued his claims against the deceased partner and . .
Cited – Bradford and Bingley Building Society v Seddon and Hancock; Walsh and Rhodes (Trading As Hancocks (a Firm) CA 11-Mar-1999
There was an unsatisfied judgment on a claim by a defendant in an earlier action against a third party. In a subsequent action against the defendant the latter issued third party proceedings against the original and different third parties.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Estoppel
Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.430660