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 between the parties and that in particular the Tribunal should consider the magnitude of the default, whether the default was the responsibility of the solicitor or the party, what disruption, unfairness or prejudice had been caused and whether a fair hearing was still possible.
Judges:
His Hon Judge Richardson
Citations:
[2003] EAT 0296 – 03 – 1510, EAT/296/03, UKEAT/296/03/MAA, [2003] UKEAT 0296 – 03 – 1510, [2004] ICR 371
Links:
Cited by:
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Tisson v Telewest Communications Group Ltd EAT 19-Feb-2008
The claimant’s claim had been struck out for his failure to comply with an order to serve a list of documents.
Held: The appeal failed. The principles applied under the Civil Procedure Rules should be applied in Employment Tribunals. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188366
