Dr S Bi v E-ACT

Dr S Bi v E-ACT

The Employment Tribunal did not err in refusing to set aside the unless order or the subsequent dismissal, nor in refusing reconsideration, as the claimant's failure to provide full consent to disclosure of medical records made a fair trial of remedy impossible. The ET was entitled to determine the applications on the papers, as no hearing was requested and there was no evidence that the claimant's vulnerabilities required an oral hearing. The medical records were relevant to all heads of loss, not just psychiatric injury, and the ET's approach was proportionate and in accordance with the interests of justice.

Parties
Appellant/respondent to the Cross Appeal: Dr S Bi; Respondent/cross Appellant: E-ACT
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal
Outcome
Appeals and cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Unless Orders, Relief From Sanctions, Reconsideration Applications, Disclosure of Medical Records, Vulnerable Parties, Fair Hearing, Proportionality in Procedural Orders
Employment Law Disability Law Civil Procedure Unless Orders Relief From Sanctions Reconsideration Applications Disclosure of Medical Records Vulnerable Parties +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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr S Bi

Appellant/respondent to the Cross Appeal

E-ACT

Respondent/cross Appellant

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in refusing to set aside an unless order and subsequent dismissal for non-compliance
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in refusing reconsideration in light of new evidence of the claimant's autism diagnosis
  3. 3 Whether the absence of an oral hearing rendered the procedure unfair, particularly given the claimant's vulnerabilities

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal did not err in refusing to set aside the unless order or the subsequent dismissal, nor in refusing reconsideration, as the claimant's failure to provide full consent to disclosure of medical records made a fair trial of remedy impossible. The ET was entitled to determine the applications on the papers, as no hearing was requested and there was no evidence that the claimant's vulnerabilities required an oral hearing. The medical records were relevant to all heads of loss, not just psychiatric injury, and the ET's approach was proportionate and in accordance with the interests of justice.

Court Disposition

Appeals and cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The claimant's appeals are dismissed.
  • The respondent's cross-appeal is dismissed.