Brian Rowe v Ashmore Group PLC & Ors
[2023] EAT 172
D Carryl v Governing Body of Manford Primary School
6 December 2023
[2023] EAT 167
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A woman was ordered to pay £500 before her unfair dismissal case could continue. The judge didn't properly check if she could afford it or explain why he set that amount. Because the court's paperwork was confusing and didn't explain how to appeal, she missed the deadline to challenge the decision. The appeals court decided the judge was wrong, and the woman should have to pay a much smaller amount.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against a judgment making a deposit order of £500 against the Claimant.
- •Claim involved unfair dismissal and discrimination claims.
- •Employment Judge Barrowclough initially dismissed the claims, then ordered a rehearing and imposed a £500 deposit.
- •Claimant appealed the deposit order and subsequent strike-out of her claim for non-payment.
- •The EAT found the Employment Tribunal failed to make reasonable enquiries into the Claimant's ability to pay and failed to give adequate reasons for the deposit order.
- •The EAT also found exceptional circumstances justifying an extension of the appeal time limit due to misleading wording in the order and the absence of the judgment leaflet explaining appeal procedures.
Legal Principles
Employment Tribunal must make reasonable enquiries into a party's ability to pay a deposit and have regard to that information when deciding the amount.
Rule 39(2) Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
The Employment Tribunal must provide reasons for making a deposit order, including how the paying party's ability to pay was considered.
Rule 39(2) Employment Tribunal Rules 2013, Adams v Kingdom Services Group Limited UKEAT/0235/18/LA
A deposit order should not disproportionately affect a party's right to a fair trial or impair access to justice.
Hemdan v Ishmael UKEAT/0021/16/DM
Exceptional circumstances may justify extending the time limit for appealing an Employment Tribunal decision.
United Arab Emirates v Abdelghafar [1995] ICR 65, Green v Mears Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 751, Aziz v Bethnal Green City Challenge Company Ltd [2000] IRLR 111, Hancocks v Cambian Education Services Ltd UKEAT/0824/10
Outcomes
Appeal upheld.
The Employment Tribunal failed to comply with Rule 39(2) by not making reasonable enquiries into the Claimant's ability to pay the deposit and by failing to provide adequate reasons for the deposit order. Exceptional circumstances justified extending the appeal time limit.
Deposit order varied.
A new deposit order of £60 (£30 per complaint) was made, taking into account the Claimant's current financial circumstances.