Lycatel Services Limited v Robin Schneider
[2023] EAT 81
Ionut Cosmin Onea v Contingent and Future Technologies Ltd
11 July 2023
[2023] EAT 125
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A worker sued his old company for unfair dismissal. He was also involved in separate High Court cases with the same company. The judge decided to put the worker's employment case on hold until the High Court cases finish, to avoid confusion and wasted time.
Key Facts
- •Ionut Cosmin Onea (claimant/appellant) was a co-founding employee of Contingent & Future Technologies Ltd (respondent/defendant).
- •Onea brought claims in the Employment Tribunal (ET) for whistleblowing, unfair dismissal, and wrongful dismissal.
- •Onea also filed a High Court unfair prejudice petition against fellow directors and the respondent.
- •The respondent brought a High Court breach of confidence action against Onea.
- •The ET refused Onea's application to stay the ET proceedings pending the High Court actions.
- •Onea appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).
Legal Principles
A stay of ET proceedings pending resolution of concurrent High Court claims is a matter of case management discretion.
Rule 29 Schedule 1 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
The EAT will only interfere with an ET's decision on a stay if there's a mistake of law, disregard of principle, misapprehension of facts, or consideration of irrelevant matters.
Noorani v Merseyside Tec Ltd [1999] IRLR 184
The key question is whether the dispute is most conveniently and appropriately tried in the ET or High Court, considering factors like complexity, amount involved, evidence, and procedure.
Bowater plc v Charlwood [1991] ICR 798
Considerable overlap between ET and High Court proceedings, with common issues, often favors a High Court stay.
Mindimaxnox LLP v Gover UKEAT/0225/10
Issue estoppel may arise if an issue is litigated and subsequently reopened between the same parties in different proceedings.
Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd [2013] UKSC 46
Outcomes
The EAT allowed Onea's appeal.
The ET erred in law by failing to apply the correct test from Bowater v Charlwood; it imposed an incorrect threshold and didn't adequately consider the substantial overlap between the ET and High Court proceedings.
The EAT re-determined the stay application.
Considering the significant overlap, complexity, potential issue estoppels, and value of the High Court claims, the EAT held the High Court was the most convenient and appropriate forum.
The EAT stayed the ET proceedings pending the outcome of the High Court proceedings.
This decision prevented potential issue estoppel and ensured efficient use of judicial resources.