Staffordshire County Council v Desna Lowers

Staffordshire County Council v Desna Lowers

The Employment Judge did not err in striking out the respondent’s defence and grounds of resistance due to repeated, wilful non-compliance with tribunal directions, including disclosure and provision of further and better particulars, which rendered a fair trial no longer possible. The respondent was given adequate opportunity to respond to the strike-out application, including the late disclosure issue. The Employment Judge properly considered proportionality and alternatives to strike-out, except in failing to consider the respondent’s participation in a remedy hearing, which did not affect the outcome on liability.

Parties
Appellant/respondent: Staffordshire County Council; Respondent/claimant: Ms Desna Lowers
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Employment Tribunal Strike Out Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed save for one point; strike-out of defence and grounds of resistance upheld; error in not considering remedy hearing participation found but did not affect outcome on liability.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Procedural Fairness, Disclosure Obligations, Remedies Hearing Participation
Employment Law Civil Procedure Strike Out Applications Procedural Fairness Disclosure Obligations Remedies Hearing Participation

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 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Staffordshire County Council

Appellant/respondent

Ms Desna Lowers

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Employment Tribunal Strike Out Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Judge erred in striking out the respondent’s defence and grounds of resistance for procedural non-compliance
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the strike-out application, including late disclosure issues
  3. 3 Whether the Employment Judge properly considered proportionality and alternatives to strike-out, including participation in remedy hearing

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Judge did not err in striking out the respondent’s defence and grounds of resistance due to repeated, wilful non-compliance with tribunal directions, including disclosure and provision of further and better particulars, which rendered a fair trial no longer possible. The respondent was given adequate opportunity to respond to the strike-out application, including the late disclosure issue. The Employment Judge properly considered proportionality and alternatives to strike-out, except in failing to consider the respondent’s participation in a remedy hearing, which did not affect the outcome on liability.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed save for one point; strike-out of defence and grounds of resistance upheld; error in not considering remedy hearing participation found but did not affect outcome on liability.

Orders

  • Strike-out of respondent’s defence and grounds of resistance confirmed
  • No further directions required as respondent permitted to participate in remedy hearing under Rule 21