EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Postponement or stay
Case management
The Claimant issued a claim. Then a CPR pre-action protocol letter and draft P/C requiring the Respondent’s response. The Respondent sought a stay in the Employment Tribunal. The Claimant consented then sought its reinstatement. The Employment Judge granted that, as the High Court proceedings had not been issued. Another Employment Judge did the same. He erred in not correctly applying Mindimaxnox to the facts. This was a case which should be stayed until any HC claim is resolved. Mindimaxnox principles applied even though no HC claim has been issued. The sole reason for the Claimant resisting a stay was that he could only fund the HC claim out of any Employment Tribunal award. By consent the EAT exercised the Employment Judge’s discretion. Stay restored.
Judges:
McMullen QC J
Citations:
[2011] UKEAT 0470 – 11 – 0909
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.445654