A Mohammed v Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust
[2023] EAT 16
A Chauhan v University of Leicester
18 July 2023
[2023] EAT 112
Employment Appeal Tribunal
Mr. Chauhan sued his employer for racism but didn't explain his claims clearly enough. The court gave him a chance to fix it, but he didn't do it well enough, so his case was thrown out. The appeals court agreed that he hadn't followed the rules properly.
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.