Van Rensburg v The Royal Borough of Kingston-Upon-Thames and others: EAT 16 Oct 2007

EAT Practice and Procedure: Striking-out/dismissal – Imposition of Deposit
The Employment Tribunal made a deposit order under rule 20 of the Tribunal Rules of Procedure against the Appellant on the grounds that her claims had little prospect of success. She failed to pay the deposit by the date specified and her claims were struck out. The appeal raised two issues. The first was whether the Chairman was entitled to have regard to the likelihood of the facts being established when making a deposit order. The second was whether the apparently mandatory duty under rule 20(4) to strike out claims if the deposit was not paid in time complied with Article 6 of the ECHR.,br />The EAT held that the Chairman could have regard to the likelihood of the facts being established when making a deposit order. The EAT did not on the facts need to resolve the question whether rule 20(4) was compatible with Article 6. The appeals were dismissed.

Citations:

[2007] UKEAT 0096 – 07 – 1610

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

CitedSodexho 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. . .
CitedChohan v Derby Law Centre EAT 2-Mar-2004
EAT Employment Tribunal claim brought out of time because of Solicitor’s negligent advice. Application of British Coal Corporation -v- Keeble [1999] IRLR 337. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.261550