header-logo header-logo

17 May 2013 / Mark Whitcombe
Issue: 7560 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Strike force (3)

Mark Whitcombe concludes his examination of the employment tribunal’s approach to striking out

The express power to issue an unless order was first introduced in the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2004. In several cases including Scottish Ambulance Service v Laing [2012] UKEAT 0038/12/1710 and and Richards v Manpower Services Ltd [2013] UKEAT 0014/13 the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has explained that unless orders are conditional judgments. They should not be confused with the various powers to strike out under r 18(7), and very different considerations arise.

A failure to comply with an unless order will lead to an automatic strike out under r 13(2). In the event of non-compliance, tribunals do not have discretion to do anything other than confirm dismissal of the claim. Partial compliance will not suffice to avoid the consequences of the unless order (Royal Bank of Scotland v Abraham [2009] UKEAT 0305/09/2608).

Since an unless order is a conditional judgment it is both susceptible to review under r 34 and also appealable to the EAT. Findings of fact

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll