T v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc
[2023] EAT 119
W Davey v Harrods Ltd
31 August 2023
[2023] EAT 133
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A worker's case was thrown out by a court for missing deadlines, but a higher court reversed the decision. The worker had asked for more time due to mental health problems, but the court didn't reply. The higher court said throwing the case out was unfair because the worker's mistakes weren't serious and the other side wasn't really harmed.
Key Facts
- •Claimant (Davey) dismissed for redundancy, claimed unfair dismissal and whistleblowing.
- •Employment Tribunal (ET) struck out Davey's claim for non-compliance with case management orders.
- •Davey repeatedly requested time extensions due to mental health issues, but the ET did not respond.
- •Davey's non-compliance mainly involved late submission of a schedule of loss and some disclosure documents.
- •ET judge considered Davey's actions unreasonable despite acknowledging mental health issues and non-deliberate nature of the final omission.
- •Respondent (Harrods) argued that repeated non-compliance warranted the strike-out.
Legal Principles
A striking-out order should be proportionate and consider the overriding objective of doing justice.
Weir Valves and Controls (UK) Ltd v Armitage [2004] ICR 371
The EAT will not overturn an ET's decision on a striking-out application merely because it would have reached a different decision; there must be an error of law.
Thomas v London Central Bus Company Ltd [2016] IRLR 9
Discretion must be exercised judicially, with due regard to reason, relevance, logic, and fairness.
Harris v Academies Enterprise Trust [2015] IRLR 208
A striking-out decision can be overturned if the judge misdirected himself on the law, misapplied it, failed to consider relevant factors, or reached a perverse decision.
Bastick v James Lane (Turf Accountants) Ltd [1979] ICR 778; Harris v Academies Enterprise Trust [2015] IRLR 208
Outcomes
Appeal allowed; ET's decision to strike out the claim was overturned.
The ET judge failed to consider the claimant's requests for time extensions which were ignored due to the ET's workload during the Covid-19 pandemic. The judge's decision was disproportionate given the minimal prejudice to the respondent and the largely inadvertent nature of the non-compliance. The judge also failed to properly apply the relevant legal principles regarding proportionality and the overriding objective.
Case remitted to the Tribunal for further directions leading to trial.
The EAT found that the strike-out was an error of law due to the ET's failure to consider relevant factors and misapplication of the legal test. A fair trial remained possible.