header-logo header-logo

On hold?

10 February 2012 / Felicia Epstein
Issue: 7500 / Categories: Features , Tribunals , Employment
printer mail-detail
hires_1_4

When should junior court proceedings be stayed in favour of the High Court, asks Felicia Epstein

There are two sets of civil proceedings between the same parties, one in the High Court and the other in a more junior civil court or tribunal. In what circumstances should the more junior court stay the case before it in favour of the High Court proceedings? And should it take a different approach if High Court proceedings have been threatened but not yet issued? These questions have been considered by the same Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) judge in two different cases.

Mindimaxnox

In Mindimaxnox LLP v Gover & Ho (2010) UKEAT/0225/DA, [2011] All ER (D) 146 (May), HHJ McMullen QC explored the factors which an employment tribunal should consider when deciding whether to stay the employment tribunal proceedings in favour of proceedings between the same parties in the High Court. His conclusions may be summarised in six principles:

(i) It is not the case that simply because there are complex factual matters the employment

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Appointment of former Solicitor General bolsters corporate investigations and white collar practice

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Firm strengthens international strategy with hire of global relations consultant

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Partner and associate join employment practice

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll