header-logo header-logo

Strike force (3)

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

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

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