Practice and Procedure, Jurisdictional/Time Points
The ET made no error of law when deciding on an application for reconsideration not to vary or revoke an earlier order striking out claims of unfair dismissal and age and disability discrimination on the grounds of non-compliance with existing orders and the claimant apparently not actively pursuing the claim.
Although at a full hearing of the application for reconsideration new information was provided, indicating that the fault lay with the claimant’s representative rather than herself, the ET was entitled to decide that the interests of justice and the broad discretion it had under Rule 70 made it appropriate for the claim to be struck out. The claimant had a remedy against her representative, and the findings of the ET made that remedy even more promising for her by accepting her evidence, examining the facts and the circumstances, and making strong findings against the representative, leading to a wasted costs order against it. The interests of justice included also the interests of the other party, who had prepared for two full hearings neither of which had been effective, and to the public interest in finality of litigation.
Outasight VB Ltd v Brown [2015] ICR D11 applied. Lindsay v Ironsides Ray and Vials [1994] ICR 381, Ministry of Justice v Burton [2016] ICR 1128, Newcastle upon Tyne City Council v Marsden [2010] ICR 743 and Bennett v London Borough of Southwark [2002] IRLR 407 considered.
Judges:
The Honourable Mr Justice Griffiths
Citations:
[2022] EAT 129
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.681356