The defendant appealed against the strike out of parts of its defence. The claimant was employed as the mosque director and imam. He had brought an action in the Industrial Tribunal alleging wrongful dismissal, but notifying the defendants that any excess above what the tribunal could order would be sought in the current action. That action had been withdrawn on commencement of the High Court proceedings. The defence had been that this was an abuse of process.
Held: The judge was correct. The case of Barber was to be distinguished because in the case the claimant had expressly reserved the roght to commence these proceedings: ‘The underlying policy of cause of action estoppel and related doctrines, which are usually classified under the heading res judicata, is that of finality in litigation and the avoidance of the multiplicity of proceedings. Save in special circumstances, it is contrary to public policy and may be an abuse of the process of the court to attempt to re-open in new proceedings a case which has already been litigated and finally determined by a court or tribunal in proceedings between the same parties or issues which could have been litigated properly between the parties in relation to the subject matter of the earlier litigation. This doctrine embodies, in my view, a principle of justice, not just policy. In the absence of special circumstances it is unjust for a party who spent time and money in obtaining a final determination of a claim or an issue in a claim to be faced with fresh proceedings from the other party seeking to re-litigate the same cause of action or the same issue.’
Judges:
Mummery, Laws LJJ
Citations:
[2001] EWCA Civ 1684, [2002] IRLR 113
Links:
Statutes:
Employment Rights Act 1996 98(1)(b)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Distinguished – Barber v Staffordshire County Council CA 29-Jan-1996
A dismissal of a claim without consideration by the tribunal created an issue estoppel. Issue estoppel rules apply equally to Industrial Tribunal decisions as elsewhere. Redundancy claim once withdrawn on one ground could not be revived on another. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Singh v The Members of The Management Committe of The Bristol Sikh Temple and Others EAT 14-Feb-2012
EAT WORKING TIME REGULATIONS – Worker
NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE ACT – Worker
The issue was whether the Priest at a Sikh Temple was a ‘worker’ within section 54(3)(b) of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Contract
Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.201434