1/ Emuemukoro v Croma Vigilant (Scotland) Ltd: A claim/response can be struck out at the start of trial if the party's actions mean no fair trial is possible within the trial window even if it could have been possible at a later date.
2/ In this case, the matter got to day 1 of a 5 day trial without CV having prepared witness statements & with it preparing a bundle excluding most of the relevant documents. CV had ignored lots of ET orders & hadn't engaged with E in preparing for the hearing.
3/ On the morning of the 1st day, the EJ struck out the response, finding that a fair trial wasn't possible within the time & that the only reasonable course was strike out rather than an adjournment of many months. Blockbuster v James was relied upon.
4/ On appeal, that decision was upheld by the EAT. CV argued that strike out should only be used if a fair trial isn't possible at any point, but the ET disagreed. Considerations about fairness to an unemployed claimant, use of court resources, passage of time were relevant.
5/ If CV was right those matters would've to be disregarded as irrelevant if a fair trial could happen at another time. The EAT found however against CV's proposed limit on the strike out power. Strike out could take account that a fair trial wasn't possible in the window.
6/ In obiter the EAT also considered the alternative Blockbuster justification for strike out - deliberate & persistent disregard of required procedural steps. The EAT accepted 'deliberate' probably excluded mere oversight or negligence.
7/ Finally, on proportionality the EAT accepted that the proportionate action would be the least drastic one, but here it was less drastic to strike out CV's case & to get on with reaching a decision than to adjourn for many months with all the prejudice to E that would bring.
8/ A good effort by @42BR_Employment roommate @RadBarrister but this one was always going to be an uphill battle after the failures of the client at the ET stage. #ukemplaw
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
2/ S was a senior sales exec with a small capital-raising/advisory firm. He entered a personal relationship with a Ukrainian lady. They split up & he then became convinced he was being continually monitored by a Russian gang to whom she had connections.
3/ S's concerns were found to be paranoid delusions. They resulted in him making wholesale changes to various aspects of his life, including installing CCTV, changing the locks, refusing on occasion to go home & a real nervousness about use of communications tech.
1/ Oxford Said Business School v Heslop: A well-written EAT rejection of various causation grounds of appeal by the employer in a whistleblowing context in which a s.103A claim failed but the detriment claim succceeded.
2/ H was director of custom programmes at OSBS. She raised concerns about the legality of procurement practice & alleged breaches of contract to the Cabinet Office in respect of a customised leadership programme, which the ET found to be protected disclosures.
3/ H had been highly appraised prior to these disclosures, but she went on holiday after making them & during that holiday a direct report complained about H's leadership & its impact on the atmosphere in the office & on the team. No specifics were provided at this point.
1/ Windle v West Yorks Police: EAT allows a Meek challenge against some findings that some detriments complained about weren't detriments & that other detriments didn't result from the making of protected disclosures.
2/ Dr Windle is a professional interpreter (presumably the same one as of Windle v SoS of Justice fame). She provided services to 2 police forces through a service supplier & raised concerns re procurement & provision of those services, including provision of unqualified people.
3/ After these & other concerns were raised, there were various internal emails questioning whether W had been properly vetted herself & whether she had Home Office clearance. Inquiries suggested a lack of vetting records & thus W was removed from future bookings.
1/ Altes v Essex Uni: An appeal on contractual construction of the termination clauses of A's contract of employment, with the EAT dismissing the appeal & holding the uni entitled to terminate as it did. bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT… #ukemplaw
2/ A was employed as a lecturer in French. She was given notice of termination during her probation period due to unlikelihood she'd achieve satisfactory progress against her probation targets before probation ended. A claimed she could only be dismissed for good cause.
3/ The EAT set out agreed principals of contractual construction from West Bromwich, Arnold v Britton & Wood v Capita related to relevant facts imputed to the reasonable man construing the term, the limits of commercial common sense as a construction tool, & natural meaning.
1/ Ameyaw v PWC has returned to the EAT yet again (I think it's the 5th time), returning empty-handed once again. This time it was 2 appeals combined (so perhaps the 5th & 6th times) & primarily concerned a reconsideration, adjournment & r.50. bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT… #ukemplaw
2/ As you may know, A was a senior manager at PWC. She brought a number of discrim/victimisation/harassment claims. At a PH in early 2017, A and her mother behaved appallingly, leading to a subsequent application to strike out A's 1st 3 claims under both ET r.37(1)(b)&(e).
3/ That application was dismissed, the EJ finding a fair trial was still possible. The EJ hearing the strike out application took the events at the previous PH from the previous EJ's judgment, refusing to allow A to adduce witness evidence in dispute.
1/ Werner v Southampton Uni: a sigh of relief for the uni as the EAT finds no bias in the ET's grant of an extension of time to enter the ET3, which they'd failed to enter through a litany of errors, & which had led to a £3.5m compensatory award! assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6177e1dd… #ukemplaw
2/ W was a Professor of International Banking from 2005 to resignation in 2018. He brought unfair dismissal, race & religion/belief discrim, holiday pay, arrears & other payments claims to the ET, complaining of career obstruction.
3/ In his ET1, W sought compensation of £4,375,000 - around 64 times his gross annual salary! His claim centred on his assertion his treatment was because he was a German Christian who believed banking concentration is a cancer to society.