header-logo header-logo

20 February 2015 / Bayo Randle
Issue: 7641 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

What’s the alternative?

Bayo Randle outlines issue estoppel in jurisdiction disputes

In the recent decision of Nayif v High Commission of Brunei Darussalam [2014] EWCA Civ 1521, [2014] All ER (D) 297 (Nov) the Court of Appeal restricted the application of the doctrine of issue estoppel and in doing so handed a victory to claimants. A litigant will no longer be estopped from litigating an issue in an alternative forum if a claim in respect of that issue was dismissed in an earlier forum for lack of jurisdiction, provided there has been no consideration of the merits.

Background

Mr Nayif brought a claim in the employment tribunal against his former employer in October 2011. The claim was in respect of bullying, harassment and abuse which took place between 2003 and 2010 and which Mr Nayif alleged was attributable to race discrimination and caused him psychiatric harm.

The employment tribunal would only have jurisdiction to hear the claim if it was brought within three months of the act in respect of which the complaint was made and failing that,

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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll