Shah v Haden Building Management Ltd: EAT 28 Sep 2005

The tribunal had served a pre-hearing notice on employment dispute consultants who had acted for the claimant, but who had reserved their position in correspondence with the employers, and had asked that any documents be served on the claimant direct. The claimant did not attend, and her claim was struck out.
Held: The letter had been put before the tribunal, but the firm had in other respects held themselves out as acting for her, and the service was good.


His Honour Judge Ansell


[2005] UKEAT 0400 – 05 – 2809, UKEAT/0400/05, Times 02-Nov-2005




England and Wales


CitedKyamanywa v London Borough of Hackney CA 5-Jun-2003
An issue was whether a notice had been sent to solicitors as the authorised representative of the Appellant. The Appellant had occasionally used one firm of solicitors but at other times she had acted in person at the hearing and also when . .
CitedWeir Valves and Controls (UK) Ltd v Armitage EAT 15-Oct-2003
EAT Practice and Procedure – Case Management
In considering whether or not to strike out or impose some lesser remedy the guiding consideration was the overriding objective which required justice to be done . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231372