Soteriou v Ultrachem Ltd. [2004] EWCA Civ 1520 (02 November 2004)

Soteriou v Ultrachem Ltd. [2004] EWCA Civ 1520 (02 November 2004)

The application for permission to appeal was refused because the findings of illegality by the Employment Tribunal created an issue estoppel, and even if not, the facts found would likely lead to the same result under the domestic law of illegality. The Human Rights Act 1998 and the ECHR provisions cited did not alter the position, as the doctrine of illegality defines the content of the right rather than creating a procedural bar, and no Convention right was infringed.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 1520
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Andreas Soteriou; Defendant/respondent: Ultrachem Limited; Defendant/respondent: Solvo Limited; Defendant/respondent: Ultracolour Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 November 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (second Appeal)
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Illegality in Contract, Issue Estoppel, Article 6 ECHR (right to Fair Trial), Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR (property Rights), Article 14 ECHR (discrimination), Strike Out Applications
Contract Law Employment Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Illegality in Contract Issue Estoppel Article 6 ECHR (right to Fair Trial) Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR (property Rights) +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andreas Soteriou

Claimant/applicant

Ultrachem Limited

Defendant/respondent

Solvo Limited

Defendant/respondent

Ultracolour Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (second Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether findings of illegality by the Employment Tribunal create an issue estoppel in subsequent civil proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the doctrine of illegality in contract law precludes the applicant's claim
  3. 3 Whether the Human Rights Act 1998 (Articles 6, 1 Protocol 1, and 14 ECHR) affects the operation of the illegality doctrine in this context

Ratio Decidendi

The application for permission to appeal was refused because the findings of illegality by the Employment Tribunal created an issue estoppel, and even if not, the facts found would likely lead to the same result under the domestic law of illegality. The Human Rights Act 1998 and the ECHR provisions cited did not alter the position, as the doctrine of illegality defines the content of the right rather than creating a procedural bar, and no Convention right was infringed.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused