EAT Practice and Procedure: Striking-Out/Dismissal – The claim was struck out under Rule 37(1)(d) as not being actively pursued, when the Claimant had not produced witness statements nor co-operated in preparing bundles, and had failed to reply to correspondence. On being warned that his claim might be struck out, the Claimant had given reasons for his failure to respond to correspondence, being illness. He supplied a witness statement and disclosed documents. The Employment Judge gave no reasons for his being satisfied that the claim should be struck out. The reasons given were so short as to fail to show the Claimant why he had been unsuccessful. The Employment Appeal Tribunal could not tell from the Reasons why the Employment Judge found it proportionate to strike out the claim. Appeal allowed and case remitted to a fresh Employment Tribunal to hold a Preliminary Hearing, to fix a date for a Full Hearing and make such orders as it finds necessary for case management. The Claimant’s application for payment of the fee for appealing to be paid by the Respondent refused; the Respondent had acted responsibly and there was no reason why the fee should be paid by it.
Lady Stacey H
[2015] UKEAT 0349 – 14 – 1002
Bailii
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.549356