James v Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd: EAT 18 Aug 2006

EAT Practice and Procedure – Costs
Costs orders for andpound;10,000 and andpound;1000 did not exceed the statutory maximum order Reg 14. Order for andpound;10000 made after striking-out order; that order was set aside by EAT and therefore costs order should also be set aside as it resulted from the striking-out order. Fresh Tribunal to consider appellant’s conduct at conclusion of the case. Tribunal correct to impose andpound;1000 to reflect the Appellant’s disgraceful conduct at the Tribunal hearing which necessitated a further costs hearing.

His Honour Judge Ansell
[2006] UKEAT 0601 – 05 – 1808, UKEAT/0601/05
Bailii, EAT
England and Wales
See AlsoBlockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James CA 25-May-2006
The defendant company appealed against an order re-instating the claimants’ claims for damages for race discrimination and victimisation after they had been struck out for wilful disobedience of the tribunal’s orders.
Held: When making a . .
See AlsoJames v Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd EAT 6-Oct-2005
EAT Practice and Procedure
Strike out case. ET struck out two claims for failing to comply with tribunal orders. Whether a proportionate sanction; whether they erred on a proper understanding of facts. . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromJames v Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd CA 23-Oct-2008
The claimant renewed his application for leave to appeal.
Held: The claimant’s first ground was unarguable. His original application failed to comply with the requirements of the 2002 Act. On the second ground, the tribunal had disagreed with . .
CitedSt Albans Girls School and Another v Neary CA 12-Nov-2009
The claimant’s case had been struck out after non-compliance with an order to file further particulars. His appeal was allowed by the EAT, and the School now itself appealed, saying that the employment judge had wrongly had felt obliged to have . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.257860