Ionut Cosmin Onea v Contingent and Future Technologies Ltd
[2023] EAT 125
Lycatel Services Limited v Robin Schneider
26 May 2023
[2023] EAT 81
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A worker sued his former employer for a huge bonus in a lower court. The employer sued in a higher court to say the worker wasn't owed the bonus. The lower court refused to pause its case, but the higher court said the complex case was better suited for the higher court and ordered the lower court to pause its case.
Key Facts
- •Claimant Robin Schneider claimed £7,995,124.89 in unpaid bonus from employer Lycatel Services Ltd.
- •Claimant initially pursued claim in Employment Tribunal (ET) for unauthorised deductions from wages.
- •Respondent Lycatel commenced High Court proceedings for negative declaratory relief regarding bonus entitlement.
- •Respondent applied for a stay of ET proceedings pending the High Court decision.
- •ET refused the stay application.
- •Respondent appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).
Legal Principles
The appropriate forum for a dispute should be the one where it can be most conveniently and appropriately tried.
Bowater plc v Charlwood [1991] ICR 798 EAT
There is no presumption in favour of an ET hearing a claim; the ET must consider whether it is the most appropriate forum.
Carter v Credit Change [1979] ICR 908 CA
An ET's decision to stay proceedings is a matter of case management discretion, reviewable only if the ET erred in principle, considered irrelevant matters, or failed to consider relevant matters.
O'Cathail v Transport for London [2013] EWCA Civ 21
ETs have jurisdiction to determine unauthorised deduction claims under sections 13 and 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 only for an 'identifiable sum'.
Coors Brewers Ltd v Adcock [2007] EWCA Civ 19
In unauthorised deduction claims, the ET determines the amount 'properly payable' to establish if an unauthorised deduction occurred.
Agarwal v Cardiff University; Tyne and Wear Passenger Executive v Anderson [2018] EWCA Civ 2084
Outcomes
EAT allowed the appeal.
The ET applied the wrong test, failing to consider which forum was most convenient and appropriate; it also wrongly characterized the respondent's High Court claim and failed to adequately address the complexity of the issues.
EAT set aside the ET's decision and replaced it with a decision to stay the ET proceedings.
The High Court is the more appropriate forum due to the complexity of issues (potentially including shadow directorship and agency), the high sum involved, and the technicality of the evidence. The informality of ET pleadings weighed against it as a forum. The Respondent's agreement to use the ET costs regime in the High Court also influenced the decision.