EAT Practice and Procedure: Striking-Out/Dismissal – Paragraph B2 of an order required disclosure to be made, and paragraph B3 provided for subsequent inspection of that which was disclosed. It was not complied with, so the Respondent obtained an unless order, which required B2 to be complied with by a given date. It was, but inspection was not given. The Respondent applied for an order to compel this, since trial was imminent. The Employment Judge made an order recording that the unless order had not been complied with. This was in error, since B2 had been, and it was B3 that was outstanding. The Respondent’s argument that the Employment Judge’s decision was nonetheless plainly and obviously right was rejected. Though the Employment Appeal Tribunal had some sympathy with the Respondent’s position, it could not say that there was only one possible outcome. An application for costs by the Respondent was rejected, since what the Claimant had done did not come within the wording of Rule 34A(1), and if it had done the Employment Appeal Tribunal would not have exercised its discretion to award them. However, nothing in the Judgment precluded the Employment Tribunal from hearing and ruling on any application to strike-out the claim which might hereafter be made by the Respondent, relying on persistent non-compliance.
Langstaff P J
[2015] UKEAT 0414 – 14 – 0605
Bailii
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.550125