Key Facts
- •Mr. Chauhan (Appellant) brought race discrimination claims against the University of Leicester (Respondent).
- •His ET1 was unclear, leading to a request for particulars.
- •An unless order was issued, requiring further and better particulars (FBPs) by a specified date.
- •Mr. Chauhan submitted FBPs, but the Employment Judge (EJ) deemed them insufficient.
- •The EJ refused relief from sanctions, striking out the claim.
- •Mr. Chauhan appealed to the EAT.
Legal Principles
Construction of an unless order: The ordinary meaning of words used is the starting point, but the legal and procedural context is relevant. A party must be able to understand what is required to comply.
Wentworth Wood v Maritime Transport Limited [2016] UKEAT
Consequences of non-compliance with an unless order: 'The claim' generally refers to the entire claim, not just parts of it.
Employment Tribunal Rules, Rule 38; Mohammed v Guy’s & Thomas’ [2023] UKEAT 16
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The EAT held the unless order, while potentially vague on its face, was clear in context, requiring responses to the employer's specific requests. The consequences of non-compliance (striking out the whole claim) were also clear. Even the best attempt at partial compliance was deemed insufficiently detailed by the EJ.