EAT Practice and Procedure – Striking out/dismissal
The Claimant made completely unspecific allegations of discrimination in her ET1. The Employment Tribunal ordered there be a Preliminary Hearing to discover what she was really alleging. 30 minutes before the hearing she asked for a postponement, since she had had a panic attack. It was granted, but it was ordered that she clarify her allegations by setting out, in chronological order, what acts she was actually complaining about as being discriminatory. She did not do so by the date set. A second Preliminary Hearing, shortly thereafter, was also postponed because she phoned in 2 minutes before it was due to start to say she had suffered a panic attack. The same order for particulars was repeated, but now as an ‘Unless’ order. It was not complied with, though some days later the Claimant did provide 38 pages of material. Her application under Rule 38 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 for relief from the automatic strike-out following non-compliance was refused, the Judge thinking that the new material did not assist – indeed, it made matters more difficult: a view that was not challenged on appeal. He thought that without particularisation a hearing could not go ahead: a further Preliminary Hearing would be needed: and the history was such that, in the absence of clear medical evidence showing that panic attacks/illness would not recur when a hearing was imminent, there was a real risk that a Preliminary Hearing would not be effective. In all the circumstances, it was not appropriate to grant relief.
Held: In so deciding, the Judge had not been shown to have erred in law.
Langstaff P J
[2015] UKEAT 0369 – 14 – 2402
Bailii
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.546427