EAT The two appeals raised questions as to (i) whether the Chairman of an employment tribunal had misdirected herself in relation to an application to amend an originating application, and (ii) as to the jurisdiction of an employment tribunal under The Employment Tribunals (Constitutions and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 to review its own previous orders.
The court accepted the appellant’s argument: ‘As for the point that the thought behind the proposed joinder of SC was the wish to be ‘proofed against the insolvency of the appropriate Respondent’, Mr Davey submitted that this too was irrelevant to the exercise of the discretion that Ms Hyde was asked to exercise. The background was that STUK had ceased to trade and Mr Davey squarely accepts that Mr Onwuka had become concerned that it could not satisfy any liability he might establish against it. Why, however, if he has an arguable claim against a related company which might also be made severally liable to him, should he not be entitled to join that company as a respondent? It is usual for claimants to want to join respondents who will be good for any liability that may be established, and there is nothing wrong with that. None of the submissions advanced by the respondents had any merit or substance in them as a matter of law, and there was no proper basis on which Ms Hyde could properly accept any of them.’
Judges:
he Honourable Mr Justice Rimer
Citations:
[2004] UKEAT 0843 – 04 – 2611, UKEAT/0843/04 and 0853/04
Links:
Statutes:
Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993 3(7), Employment Tribunals (Constitutions and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004
Citing:
Cited – Cocking v Sandhurst (Stationers) Ltd NIRC 1974
The Appellant employee had applied for leave to amend his first application by substituting the name of the parent company. The Tribunal held that the rules of procedure relating to time limits went to their jurisdiction and that the amended . .
Cited by:
See Also – Onwuka v Spherion Technology (UK) Ltd and others EAT 6-Feb-2008
EAT Transfer of Undertakings: Transfer
The Appellant was employed by R1. He worked for a particular consultancy in R1’s business. That part of R1’s business was sold. The only issue remaining in the EAT was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219994