10 February 2012 / Felicia Epstein

Issue: 7500 / Categories: Features , Tribunals , Employment

printer

mail-detail

On hold?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

On hold?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS

NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders

Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners

NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do

A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent

Your magistrates’ court needs you!

Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process

NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed

Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’

NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits

A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’

back-to-top-scroll