EAT Practice and Procedure – Review; Insolvency
A Respondent debarred under rule 4(1) and 9 may apply for a review and, if granted, appear as a full party. Otherwise there is no purpose in allowing it to make an application under rule 35. The Employment Tribunal erred in the administrative arrangements it made after he was debarred, causing confusion and unfairness, and wrongly refused to review the substantive judgment. DandH Travel and NSM Music applied. Remitted to the same Employment Tribunal to hold a review limited to compensation, as from the outset liability was not contested.
Judges:
His Honour Judge Mcmullen QC
Citations:
[2007] UKEAT 0568 – 06 – 1101, UKEAT/0568/06
Links:
Citing:
Cited – Sodexho Ltd v Gibbons EAT 14-Jul-2005
EAT Deposit ordered. Order lost in post due to the Claimant putting wrong post-code on ET1. Review. Distinguishing Judgments from Orders. Strike-out. Extending time. . .
Cited – NSM Music Ltd v J H Leefe EAT 14-Dec-2005
EAT Practice and Procedure: Appearance/Response, Review and Appellate Jurisdiction/Burns-Barke
When a Respondent has been debarred from taking part in proceedings under ET Rule 9, he may request Reasons . .
Cited – Shergold v Fieldway Medical Centre EAT 5-Dec-2005
The claimant had submitted a grievance complaining in general terms of the way in which she had been treated by a manager. She did not, however, refer to a particular incident relied on in her pleading as one of the two ‘last straw’ incidents that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.249621