EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Striking-out/dismissal
Respondent failed to present response in time and was accordingly debarred under rule 9 – Judgment given following Hearing at which Respondent not permitted to participate – Application for review disallowed because made purportedly under rule 33 not rule 34.
Held: application should have been considered as an application under rule 34 – D and H Travel [2006] ICR 1537 followed – Observations on Chowles v West (UKEAT/0473/08, BAILII: [2009] UKEAT 0473 – 08 – 0801 )
Judges:
Underhill P J
Citations:
[2008] UKEAT 0327 – 08 – 2204
Links:
Citing:
Cited – Sodexho Ltd v Gibbons EAT 14-Jul-2005
EAT Deposit ordered. Order lost in post due to the Claimant putting wrong post-code on ET1. Review. Distinguishing Judgments from Orders. Strike-out. Extending time. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.349091