D McGonagle v Jaguar Land Rover Limited
[2023] EAT 24
Alexander Pady & Ors v HMRC & Ors
20 May 2024
[2024] EAT 73
Employment Appeal Tribunal
Many people sued the government over unfair redundancy payments. The court decided to hear only a few cases first to save time. Other people knew about this but waited to see what happened, then tried to sue again. The appeal court said that was unfair and threw out their new lawsuits because they should have joined earlier.
Key Facts
- •20 FDA claimants brought age discrimination claims against various government departments regarding a redundancy payment scheme (CSCS).
- •Similar claims were already subject to a Presidential Case Management Order (PCMO) using sample cases to determine justification.
- •FDA claimants were aware of the PCMO and the preliminary hearing on justification but did not actively participate.
- •The respondents' justification defense was upheld in the sample cases, dismissing the claims.
- •FDA claimants sought to continue their claims, relying on new expert evidence.
- •The Employment Tribunal (ET) struck out the FDA claimants' claims as an abuse of process.
- •The FDA claimants appealed.
Legal Principles
Power to strike out claims as an abuse of process is exceptional, based on public interest in finality and preventing parties from being twice vexed.
Rule 37(1)(b) Employment Tribunal Rules 2013; Ashmore v British Coal Corporation [1990] 2 QB 338; Johnson v Gore Wood & Co (a firm) [2002] 2 AC 1 HL; Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Sinclair and ors [2017] 1 WLR 2646 CA
Re-litigation is not prima facie an abuse of process in civil cases, but can be abusive if manifestly unfair or brings administration of justice into disrepute.
Allsop v Banner Jones Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 7; Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands [1982] A.C. 529
Fresh evidence justifying re-opening an issue must entirely change the aspect of the case; a higher standard than merely having an important influence on the result.
Phosphate Sewage Co. Ltd v Molleson (1879) 4 App Cas 801; Ashmore; Hunter
Proportionality assessment in age discrimination requires weighing the discriminatory effect against the importance of the legitimate aim.
Section 13 Equality Act 2010; Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes [2012] UKSC 16
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The ET permissibly found that the FDA claimants' actions constituted an abuse of process. Their failure to participate in the earlier proceedings, despite knowledge of the PCMO and preliminary hearing, coupled with the insufficient nature of their new evidence, undermined the ET's case management and risked repetitive litigation. The ET correctly applied the legal test, considering all relevant factors.